BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

7 results for “depreciation”+ Section 1Oclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi22Chennai7Mumbai7Bangalore6Ahmedabad2Hyderabad2Karnataka1

Key Topics

Section 115B15Section 69B5Section 1484Section 683Natural Justice3Section 37(1)2Section 143(3)2Section 442Addition to Income2

BHAGWANDAS SURAJKARAN SOMANI HUF,THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THANE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 8628/MUM/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle HariaFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 115B

depreciation specified in sub-section (2). The failure to file Form No.10-IE within the prescribed due date as per sub-section (5) does not invalidate the assessee's claim of the option. The mandate of filing the Form No. 10-IE is only directory. What invalidates the exercise of option has been clearly mentioned in the first proviso to section

BHAGWANDAS SURAJKARAN SOMANI HUF,THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THANE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 8629/MUM/2025[2022-2023]Status: Disposed
ITAT Mumbai
16 Feb 2026
AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle HariaFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 115B

depreciation specified in sub-section (2). The failure to file Form No.10-IE within the prescribed due date as per sub-section (5) does not invalidate the assessee's claim of the option. The mandate of filing the Form No. 10-IE is only directory. What invalidates the exercise of option has been clearly mentioned in the first proviso to section

BHAGWANDAS SURAJKARAN SOMANI HUF,THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THANE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 8627/MUM/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle HariaFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 115B

depreciation specified in sub-section (2). The failure to file Form No.10-IE within the prescribed due date as per sub-section (5) does not invalidate the assessee's claim of the option. The mandate of filing the Form No. 10-IE is only directory. What invalidates the exercise of option has been clearly mentioned in the first proviso to section

INCOME TAX OFFICER-16(1)(5), MUMBAI vs. M/S.RE N RAGA MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6311/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer - 16(1)(5) V. M/S. Re N Raga Media Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 439, 4Th Floor Bungalow No. A/8, Svp Nagar Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Nr. Mhada Telephone Exchange, Mumbai-400 020 Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 053

For Appellant: Shri Birju S. ShahFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari
Section 131Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 68

1O has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Income-tax Act. I, therefore, purpose to assessee/ reassess / recompute the income / loss / depreciation

GODREJ INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 10(2), MUMBAI

In the results, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of revenue stands dismissed

ITA 151/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Godrej Industries Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of Kalyaniwlla & Mistry, Income-Tax-10(2), फनधभ/ Room No.475, 4Th Floor, Army & Navi Building, 148, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, M K Marg, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400020 Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Godrej Industries Ltd., Tax-14(1)(2), Pirojsha Nagar, Eastern फनधभ/ Room No.460, 4Th Floor, Express Highway, Aayakar Bhavan, Vikhroli, Vs. M K Marg, Mumbai-400079 Mumbai-400020 स्थधमी रेखध सं./ Pan : Aaacg2953R (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri F V IraniFor Respondent: Ms.Vidisha Kalra
Section 37(1)

1O,48,OOO/- added by the A.O. The disallowance is restricted to Rs.8,26,99,OOO/-. The appellant had already disallowed Rs.36,98,OOO/-, hence, net amount allowable for disallowance is Rs.7,90,01,000/- rest of the amount is deleted i.e.Rs.25,20,47,000. Relief granted to the appellant is Rs.25,20,47,000/- 7 and 164/Mum/2015

ASST CIT 14(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. GODREJ INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the results, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of revenue stands dismissed

ITA 164/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Godrej Industries Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of Kalyaniwlla & Mistry, Income-Tax-10(2), फनधभ/ Room No.475, 4Th Floor, Army & Navi Building, 148, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, M K Marg, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400020 Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Godrej Industries Ltd., Tax-14(1)(2), Pirojsha Nagar, Eastern फनधभ/ Room No.460, 4Th Floor, Express Highway, Aayakar Bhavan, Vikhroli, Vs. M K Marg, Mumbai-400079 Mumbai-400020 स्थधमी रेखध सं./ Pan : Aaacg2953R (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri F V IraniFor Respondent: Ms.Vidisha Kalra
Section 37(1)

1O,48,OOO/- added by the A.O. The disallowance is restricted to Rs.8,26,99,OOO/-. The appellant had already disallowed Rs.36,98,OOO/-, hence, net amount allowable for disallowance is Rs.7,90,01,000/- rest of the amount is deleted i.e.Rs.25,20,47,000. Relief granted to the appellant is Rs.25,20,47,000/- 7 and 164/Mum/2015

DCIT 1(3), MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 4475/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 44Section 69Section 69B

1o be assessed under this Act, or an intimation under sub- section (1) or sub- section (IB) of section 143, where the assessee objects to the making of adjustments! or any order of assessment under sub- section (3) of section 143 or section 144, where the assessee objects to the amount of income assessed, or to the amount