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.

511 results for “depreciation”+ Section 264clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai511Delhi330Bangalore172Chennai127Karnataka74Ahmedabad64Kolkata62Jaipur37Pune27Chandigarh24Hyderabad21Lucknow13Surat10Indore10Jodhpur7Raipur6Cochin6SC6Rajkot6Telangana5Cuttack5Nagpur4Guwahati3Kerala3Amritsar2Agra2D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1Calcutta1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)73Addition to Income65Disallowance55Depreciation46Section 1144Deduction43Section 14A22Section 14822Section 153A22Section 147

TATA COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the question of law referred to the Special Bench is answered in favour of the assessee

ITA 3515/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Arun Khodpiatata Communications Limited Pr. Cit, Videsh Sanchar Bhavan, Mumbai-1 Vs. M. G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacv 2808 C (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri J. D. Mistri Respondent By : Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Present Appeal, At The Instance Of The Assessee, Assails Order Dated 21.03.2025, Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short), By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (‘Ld. Pcit’ For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds, Both On Jurisdictional Issues As Well As On Merits, However, There Is Consensus Between The Parties That The Appeal Can Be Decided On Merits, In Which Event, There Is No Need To Go Into Various Other Issues Raised In Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri J. D. MistriFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 112Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50

depreciable asset, however, while granting exemption under Section 54E of the Act, which is applicable for Long term capital gains, the jurisdictional High Court has held that for the purpose of exemption under Section 54E of the Act, it has to be treated as Long term capital gains. 9 Tata Communications Limited vs. Pr. CIT 26. In Para

Showing 1–20 of 511 · Page 1 of 26

...
20
Section 4019
Section 13219

DCIT 4(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE TRANSPORT AND TRAVELS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5683/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman: A.Y : 2013-14 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Reliance Transport & Tax – 4(3)(1), Travels Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai (Appellant) 6Th Floor, Nagin Mahal, 82, Veer Nariman Road, Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020. Pan : Aaacr2380M (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh YadavFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Thar
Section 143(3)

depreciable asset, however, while granting exemption under Section 54E of the Act, which is applicable for Long term capital gains, the jurisdictional High Court has held that for the purpose of exemption under Section 54E of the Act, it has to be treated as Long term capital gains. Later on, the same principle was reiterated by the Hon'ble Bombay

VIACOM 18 MEDIA PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-16(1), MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4608/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Ms. Kanupriya Damor, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Ms. Moksha Mehta
Section 153(5)Section 244A

depreciation as they are consequential and statutorily available as per provisions of section 72 read with section statutorily available as per provisions of section 72 read with section statutorily available as per provisions of section 72 read with section 32(2) of the Act 32(2) of the Act Non- grant of opportunity of virtual hearing t of opportunity

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, MUMBAI vs. VIACOM18 MEDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4658/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Ms. Kanupriya Damor, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Ms. Moksha Mehta
Section 153(5)Section 244A

depreciation as they are consequential and statutorily available as per provisions of section 72 read with section statutorily available as per provisions of section 72 read with section statutorily available as per provisions of section 72 read with section 32(2) of the Act 32(2) of the Act Non- grant of opportunity of virtual hearing t of opportunity

VIACOM 18 MEDIA PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-16(1), MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4606/MUM/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Ms. Kanupriya Damor, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Ms. Moksha Mehta
Section 153(5)Section 244A

depreciation as they are consequential and statutorily available as per provisions of section 72 read with section statutorily available as per provisions of section 72 read with section statutorily available as per provisions of section 72 read with section 32(2) of the Act 32(2) of the Act Non- grant of opportunity of virtual hearing t of opportunity

MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 522/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Maharashtra Airport Deputy Commissioner Of Development Company Income Tax, Ltd., Circle (3)(2)(1), 6Th Floor, Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Vs. World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcm9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy/Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Maharashtra Airport Income Tax-(3)(2)(1), Development Co. Ltd., Vs. 12Th Floor, Room No.608/674, 6Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nagpal, D.R
Section 80I

depreciation against the assessed income. 3) Without prejudice, on facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. Assessing Officer has erred in law in not increasing / restating the "Work in Progress" to the extent of addition of interest income of Rs. 14,52,17,933/- made by the ld. Assessing Officer under the head 'Income From Other Sources' which

ACIT 3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 798/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Maharashtra Airport Deputy Commissioner Of Development Company Income Tax, Ltd., Circle (3)(2)(1), 6Th Floor, Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Vs. World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcm9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy/Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Maharashtra Airport Income Tax-(3)(2)(1), Development Co. Ltd., Vs. 12Th Floor, Room No.608/674, 6Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nagpal, D.R
Section 80I

depreciation against the assessed income. 3) Without prejudice, on facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. Assessing Officer has erred in law in not increasing / restating the "Work in Progress" to the extent of addition of interest income of Rs. 14,52,17,933/- made by the ld. Assessing Officer under the head 'Income From Other Sources' which

DCIT 3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPEMENT CO. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 3704/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Maharashtra Airport Deputy Commissioner Of Development Company Income Tax, Ltd., Circle (3)(2)(1), 6Th Floor, Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Vs. World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcm9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy/Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Maharashtra Airport Income Tax-(3)(2)(1), Development Co. Ltd., Vs. 12Th Floor, Room No.608/674, 6Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nagpal, D.R
Section 80I

depreciation against the assessed income. 3) Without prejudice, on facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. Assessing Officer has erred in law in not increasing / restating the "Work in Progress" to the extent of addition of interest income of Rs. 14,52,17,933/- made by the ld. Assessing Officer under the head 'Income From Other Sources' which

MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 521/MUM/2019[2088-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2088-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Maharashtra Airport Deputy Commissioner Of Development Company Income Tax, Ltd., Circle (3)(2)(1), 6Th Floor, Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Vs. World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcm9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy/Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Maharashtra Airport Income Tax-(3)(2)(1), Development Co. Ltd., Vs. 12Th Floor, Room No.608/674, 6Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nagpal, D.R
Section 80I

depreciation against the assessed income. 3) Without prejudice, on facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. Assessing Officer has erred in law in not increasing / restating the "Work in Progress" to the extent of addition of interest income of Rs. 14,52,17,933/- made by the ld. Assessing Officer under the head 'Income From Other Sources' which

HEMANT KUMAR GODARA vs. ASST CIT 15(1),

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4185/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Pawan Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4185/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Shri Hemant Kumar Godara, बनाम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax E-1, Oidc Ringanwada, 15(1), Vs. Daman (Ut)- Mumbai. Pin-396210 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 142(1)Section 153Section 250Section 254Section 263Section 264Section 80I

264 is passed by the Commissioner on or after the 1st day of April, 2006, and during the course of the proceedings for the fresh assessment of total income, a reference under sub-section (1) of section 92CA- 4 (i) was made before the 1st day of June, 2007 but an order under sub- section (3) of section 92CA

GRANADA INVESTMENTS & FINANCE P .LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 6(3),

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1343/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi () & Kavitha Rajagopal () M/S Granada Investments & Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Finance Pvt Ltd (Formerly Known Circle-6(3), Mumbai As M/S Granada Energy Systems Pvt Ltd), 3Rd Floor, Industry Manor Near Century Bazaar, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400 025 Pan : Aaccm0066F Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 264

section 264 and that the Ld.CIT(A) had no jurisdiction to deal with the same. 6. Ground 3 pertains to the fact that the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in not directing the Assessing Officer to reduce sale consideration due to revised sale price and the share of M/s WMI Cranes Ltd as the assessee had finally received lesser consideration from

RELIANCE POWER LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 1348/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Omkareshwar Chidara(Physical Hearing) Dcit – 15(3)(1), Mumbai Reliance Power Limited Room No. 460, 4Th Floor, H-Block, 1St Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Vs Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Knowledge City, Koperkhairane, Mumbai – 400020] Navi Mumbai-400710 [Pan: Aaacr2365L] Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Reliance Power Limited Dcit – 15(3)(1), Mumbai Room No. 460, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Reliance Centre, Ground Floor, 19 Vs Walchand Hirachand Marg, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400001. Mumbai – 400020] [Pan: Aaacr2365L] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 50

264 (Bombay), the Hon’ble Jurisdiction High Court held that when deemed short term capital gain arise on account of sale of depreciable asset that was held for a period to which long term capital gain would apply, said gain would be set off against brought forward long term capital losses and unabsorbed depreciation. In CIT vs Prasad Trading

M/S NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD vs. ADDLCIT RG - 7(1),

ITA 6141/MUM/2003[2000 01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2020

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodm/S Nicholas Piramal India Ltd. Addl. Commissioner Of Piramal Healthcare Ltd. Income - Tax Range-7(1), (Earlier Known As Nicholas Piramal India Ltd), Mumbai 4Th Floor, Piramal Tower Annexe, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai – 400013 Pan – Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent) D.C.I.T, Circle-7 (1), M/S Nicholas Piramal India Ltd. 452, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Piramal Healthcare Ltd. Mumbai. 4Th Floor, Piramal Tower Annexe, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai – 400013

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Senior advocateFor Respondent: Shri Ronak Doshi, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 14ASection 44A

section 32 of the Act. In our view the above observation does not support the case made out by the A.O. We, therefore, uphold the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss the Ground No.2 raised by the assessee”. 13. As the issues involved in the year under consideration as raised in ground No. 3 & 4 of the Revenue

THE J.K. TRUST BOMBAY,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3769/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S The J. K. Trust Cit (Exemption) Bombay, R. No.617, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ New Hind House, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Narottam Morrjee Marg, Lalbaug, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400001

Section 11Section 263

264. Therefore, a reasoned order on a substantial issue is legally necessary. The judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court on which reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the assessee also points to the same direction. We have reproduced above the relevant portion of the observations made by the learned Judges. They have held that orders, which

MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 3, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3741/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Maharashtra Airport Pr. Cit-3, Development Company 612, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 8Th Floor, World Trade M. K. Road, Centre, Tower No.1, Mumbai-400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aadcm9623M

Section 148Section 154Section 263Section 80I

264. Therefore, a reasoned order on a substantial issue is legally necessary. The judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court on which reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the assessee also points to the same direction. We have reproduced above the relevant portion of the observations made by the learned Judges. They have held that orders, which

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD ( CORPORATE FINANCE DIVISION),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

ITA 3762/MUM/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistry Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kishor Dhule
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 43B

depreciation of INR.5,88,509/-. Ground No. 2 to 2.2 raised the Assessee are allowed. 8. Ground No. 3. “3. Disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) 3.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in upholding the action of AO in disallowing the liability of Rs. 1,74,35,896/- towards year-end expenses

DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI vs. V. HOTELS LTD, EARLIER KNOWN AS TULIP HOSPITALITY SERVICES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4216/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

264). The assessee had claimed depreciation @ 25% on the ground that it is a some kind of business or commercial rights, therefore, it falls within the realm and scope of “intangible assets” allowable for depreciation @ 25% under section

V. HOTELS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3189/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

264). The assessee had claimed depreciation @ 25% on the ground that it is a some kind of business or commercial rights, therefore, it falls within the realm and scope of “intangible assets” allowable for depreciation @ 25% under section

V HOTELS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2546/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

264). The assessee had claimed depreciation @ 25% on the ground that it is a some kind of business or commercial rights, therefore, it falls within the realm and scope of “intangible assets” allowable for depreciation @ 25% under section

V. HOTELS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3190/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

264). The assessee had claimed depreciation @ 25% on the ground that it is a some kind of business or commercial rights, therefore, it falls within the realm and scope of “intangible assets” allowable for depreciation @ 25% under section