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.

3,110 results for “depreciation”+ Section 30clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,110Delhi2,778Bangalore1,134Chennai922Kolkata645Ahmedabad430Hyderabad250Jaipur241Karnataka174Pune159Raipur156Chandigarh144Amritsar95Indore90Surat78Visakhapatnam65Rajkot59SC54Lucknow50Cuttack45Cochin45Ranchi38Nagpur35Telangana34Guwahati31Jodhpur27Kerala19Patna17Dehradun15Calcutta12Panaji9Agra8Varanasi7Allahabad7Jabalpur5Punjab & Haryana2Rajasthan2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1Gauhati1Tripura1D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)65Addition to Income60Disallowance48Section 14A43Section 80I39Deduction34Section 1031Section 14829Section 4029Section 250

PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHAN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 994/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 40

depreciation is a statutory allowance u/s 32 of the Act relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nectar Beverages Private Limited v. DCIT (2009) 314 ITR 314(SC). 5. The AO rejected the contentions of the assessee firm and held that the basic objective of introduction of section 14A into

Showing 1–20 of 3,110 · Page 1 of 156

...
27
Depreciation24
Section 14722

ASST CIT 19(3), MUMBAI vs. PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHIN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1562/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 40

depreciation is a statutory allowance u/s 32 of the Act relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nectar Beverages Private Limited v. DCIT (2009) 314 ITR 314(SC). 5. The AO rejected the contentions of the assessee firm and held that the basic objective of introduction of section 14A into

VIR ALLOYS AND STEEL COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 11(3)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, with directions as aforesaid

ITA 2557/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Akhilesh Sindhu
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Section 147 disallowed additional depreciation of ₹37,41,179/-, reducing the ra additional depreciation of , reducing the rate from the 30

VIR ALLOYS AND STEEL COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 11(3)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, with directions as aforesaid

ITA 2489/MUM/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Akhilesh Sindhu
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Section 147 disallowed additional depreciation of ₹37,41,179/-, reducing the ra additional depreciation of , reducing the rate from the 30

SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 261/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar & Chaitanya
Section 112Section 194CSection 250Section 37(1)Section 40Section 50

depreciation has been allowed in the first year itself and which is deemed as short term capital gain under Section 50 of the Income Tax Act relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT V/s. Ace Builders (P.) Limited([2005] 144 Taxman 855/281 ITR 210 (Bombay)) even though the said decision was rendered in the context

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

depreciation has been allowed in the first year itself and which is deemed as short term capital gain under Section 50 of the Income Tax Act relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT V/s. Ace Builders (P.) Limited(281 ITR 210) even though the said decision was rendered in the context of eligibility of deduction

DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI vs. KHANNA HOTEL P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 1705/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2017AY 2004-05
For Appellant: Shri Apurv GandhiFor Respondent: Dr. Kailash Gaikwad
Section 143Section 254(1)Section 32Section 71

depreciation, the held that contention of the assessee with regard to section 71 permitting setting off of business loss against STCG and LTCG was incorrect, that provisions of section 71 (3)did not allow set off of capital loss against business income,that the intention of the legislature was that assessee should not get benefit of paying taxes at lower

ACIT 421 MUMBAI, MUMBAI CITY vs. SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI, MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the\nappeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1022/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2022-23
Section 112Section 194CSection 250Section 37(1)Section 40Section 50

30,85,161\n1,40,000\n18,40,00,703\n10.\nSubsequently the assessee recovered the said amount by selling the flats for a\nconsideration of Rs.21 cr. to its sister concern M/s Jivesh Developers & Properties\nPvt. Ltd. and in the books of account reflected a sum of Rs.2,59,99,297/-\n(Rs.21,00,00,000 less Rs.18

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)

30,28,80,078 R.3,73,438/-) Capital gains as per section 50(2) of the Act 19,09,32,707 15. The helicopter was purchased on 31.10.2006 and the same was sold on 25.03.2013 and, therefore, the period of holding was more than 3 years. Since the block became Nil, the provisions of Section

DEUTSCHE INDIA PVT. LTD.(EARLIER KNOWN AS 'DBOI GLOBAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.),MUMBAI vs. ACIT-1(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for 16

ITA 2522/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J.D. MistriFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92CSection 92D

30 provides deduction on repairs, municipal tax andinsurance premiums.  Section 31, provides deduction on repairs and insurance ofplant, machinery and furniture.  Section 32 provides for depreciation

THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 2458/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Amol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 32(1)

section 144C(5) of the\nAct, rejected the objections filed by the assessee on this issue on the basis\nthat the assessee has not explained why such a claim was not made by filing\na revised return. Accordingly, the action of the AO in not entertaining the claim\nof the assessee was upheld. In conformity, the AO passed the impugned

B. ARUNKUMAR CAPITAL & CREDIT SERVICES PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed

ITA 2034/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2025AY 2020-21
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 80G

30 provides deduction on repairs, municipal tax and insurance\npremiums.\n• Section 31, provides deduction on repairs and insurance of plant,\nmachinery and furniture\n• Section 32 provides for depreciation

GLITCH MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed

ITA 2178/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2020-21
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 40

30 provides deduction on repairs, municipal tax and insurance\npremiums.\n• Section 31, provides deduction on repairs and insurance of plant,\nmachinery and furniture\n• Section 32 provides for depreciation

ABM KNOWLEDGEWARE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER CIRCLE 4(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed

ITA 3460/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2020-2021
Section 135Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 80G

30 provides deduction on repairs, municipal tax and insurance\npremiums.\n• Section 31, provides deduction on repairs and insurance of plant,\nmachinery and furniture\n• Section 32 provides for depreciation

JEWELEX INDIA PRIAVTE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5285/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarjewelex India Private V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 401 Trade Centre, Bandra 14(1)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Kurla Complex, Bandra Maharishi Karve Marg, (East), Mumbai – 400 098, Mumbai – 400 020, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcj4523H Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, (Sr. DR)
Section 135Section 143(3)Section 37Section 37(1)Section 43(6)(c)Section 80G

30 to 36 of the Act are an allowable deduction u/s 80G of the Act. 6.1 In the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Gabriel India Ltd. [2025] 173 taxmann.com 219 (Mumbai-Trib.)[13-03-2025], it was held as under: 7. After giving a thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below

PFIZER LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 14(2) (2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 2132/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm M/S Pfizer Limited The Capital, 1802/1901, Acit-14(2)(2) Plot No.C-70, G-Block, 461, 4T H Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp3334M

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma, CIT
Section 32Section 35D

depreciable. Whether other sections of the Act restrict depreciation in case of goodwill acquired during amalgamation, was not an issue before Hon'ble SC and therefore the decision of Hon'ble SC should not be extended to such issues which it never decided. 2.5. Further, it is submitted that in the case of Rameshwar Lal Sanwarmal v. CIT 122 ITR1

ACIT - 14(2) (2), MUMBAI vs. PFIZER LTD, MUMBAI

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

ITA 2108/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm M/S Pfizer Limited The Capital, 1802/1901, Acit-14(2)(2) Plot No.C-70, G-Block, 461, 4T H Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp3334M

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma, CIT
Section 32Section 35D

depreciable. Whether other sections of the Act restrict depreciation in case of goodwill acquired during amalgamation, was not an issue before Hon'ble SC and therefore the decision of Hon'ble SC should not be extended to such issues which it never decided. 2.5. Further, it is submitted that in the case of Rameshwar Lal Sanwarmal v. CIT 122 ITR1

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 2317/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 32Section 35

30 provides deduction on repairs, municipal tax and insurance premiums. • Section 31, provides deduction on repairs and insurance of plant, machinery and furniture Section 32 provides for depreciation

DCIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 2587/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 32Section 35

30 provides deduction on repairs, municipal tax and insurance premiums. • Section 31, provides deduction on repairs and insurance of plant, machinery and furniture Section 32 provides for depreciation

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 2318/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 32Section 35

30 provides deduction on repairs, municipal tax and insurance premiums. • Section 31, provides deduction on repairs and insurance of plant, machinery and furniture Section 32 provides for depreciation