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.

570 results for “depreciation”+ Section 40A(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai570Delhi441Bangalore156Chennai129Ahmedabad109Kolkata107Raipur93Jaipur54Amritsar48Hyderabad47Surat38Chandigarh25Indore24Pune22Cochin20Visakhapatnam15Rajkot11Guwahati10Lucknow9Cuttack8Jodhpur6Patna5Karnataka5Varanasi5SC3Agra3Dehradun3Ranchi3Nagpur2Calcutta2Allahabad1Jabalpur1Telangana1Kerala1

Key Topics

Addition to Income74Disallowance71Section 143(3)59Deduction38Depreciation37Section 26330Section 14A27Section 4025Section 271(1)(c)21Section 143(1)

M/S SANOFI INDIA LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT RG 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1606/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 271(1)(c)

depreciation of Rs. 12,76,648/- with reference to the same. He ought not to have done so. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of the expenditure of Rs. 13,91,89,365 under section 40A(2

ACIT- 3(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. MM/S SANOFI INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD)., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1302/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Showing 1–20 of 570 · Page 1 of 29

...
21
Section 153A20
Section 115J18
Section 271(1)(c)

depreciation of Rs. 12,76,648/- with reference to the same. He ought not to have done so. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of the expenditure of Rs. 13,91,89,365 under section 40A(2

SANOFI INDIA LTD FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD ,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the C.O. of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed

ITA 6626/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra (CIT-DR) &
Section 32Section 32(1)

depreciation is not sustainable. This ground of the assessee is allowed. Disallowance under section 40A(2)(b)- Ground No.2 7. The assessee

ADDL CIT RG 8(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SANOFI INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. AVENTIS PHARMA LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, the C.O. of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed

ITA 7712/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra (CIT-DR) &
Section 32Section 32(1)

depreciation is not sustainable. This ground of the assessee is allowed. Disallowance under section 40A(2)(b)- Ground No.2 7. The assessee

ADDL CIT 8(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SANOFI INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. AVENTIS PHARMA LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, the C.O. of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed

ITA 6698/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra (CIT-DR) &
Section 32Section 32(1)

depreciation is not sustainable. This ground of the assessee is allowed. Disallowance under section 40A(2)(b)- Ground No.2 7. The assessee

TRIMODE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4977/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhtrimode Properties Pvt. Ltd. Acit - 10(3) Dgp House, 3Rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 88C, Old Prabhadevi Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400025. Vs. Pan: Aabct2569F Appellant Respondent Trimode Properties Pvt. Ltd. Dcit - 15(3)(1) Dgp House, 3Rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 88C, Old Prabhadevi Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400025. Vs. Pan: Aabct2569F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Hitesh Trivedi (Ars) Respondent By : Shri Rajiv Gubgotra (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.06.2019 Orderunder Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. These Two Appeals By Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax [Cit(A)]-22, Mumbai Dated 27.02.2012 & Ld. Cit(A)-24, Mumbai Dated 24.06.2016 For Assessment Year (Ay) For Ita No. 3471/M/12 & 4977/M/16- Trimode Properties Pvt. Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Gubgotra (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)

section 40A(2) of the Act to the payments independent parties. 2. (a) The appellant submits that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in disallowing depreciation

DCIT OSD 1(1), MUMBAI vs. THE SARASWAT CO-OP BANK P.LTD, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result all the six appeals i

ITA 8622/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 8622/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) The Deputy Commissioner Of The Saraswat Co-Operative बनाम/ Income Tax(Osd),1(1) Bank Limited V. Room No. 540/564, 5 T H Floor Madhushree, Plot No. 85 Aayakar Bhawan, M K Road District Navi Mumbai- New Marine Lines 400 703 Mumbai-400020 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact5543L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

Section 14A

Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act as the payments are made to related enterprise. The AO observed that on verification of the additions to fixed assets made by SIL during the year, it was observed that total addition is Rs. ITA 8622 & 7738/Mum/2010 , 7 ITA 1140 & 694/Mum/2012 , ITA 5627/Mum/2013 & ITA 1/Mum/2014 2.99 crores and depreciation

ACIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

ITA 4588/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Miss Vidisha Kalara
Section 69Section 69A

40A(2)(b), on the ground that the appellants have paid job work charges to Cheryl Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. for which there is no agreement. The appellants contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CITCA) ought not to have upheld the action of the Assessing Officer in making the impugned disallowance

DCIT 4(2), MUMBAI vs. GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

ITA 4584/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Miss Vidisha Kalara
Section 69Section 69A

40A(2)(b), on the ground that the appellants have paid job work charges to Cheryl Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. for which there is no agreement. The appellants contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CITCA) ought not to have upheld the action of the Assessing Officer in making the impugned disallowance

GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 4(2), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

ITA 3516/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Miss Vidisha Kalara
Section 69Section 69A

40A(2)(b), on the ground that the appellants have paid job work charges to Cheryl Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. for which there is no agreement. The appellants contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CITCA) ought not to have upheld the action of the Assessing Officer in making the impugned disallowance

GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

ITA 3514/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Miss Vidisha Kalara
Section 69Section 69A

40A(2)(b), on the ground that the appellants have paid job work charges to Cheryl Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. for which there is no agreement. The appellants contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CITCA) ought not to have upheld the action of the Assessing Officer in making the impugned disallowance

ACIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

ITA 4585/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Miss Vidisha Kalara
Section 69Section 69A

40A(2)(b), on the ground that the appellants have paid job work charges to Cheryl Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. for which there is no agreement. The appellants contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CITCA) ought not to have upheld the action of the Assessing Officer in making the impugned disallowance

ACIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

ITA 4587/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Miss Vidisha Kalara
Section 69Section 69A

40A(2)(b), on the ground that the appellants have paid job work charges to Cheryl Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. for which there is no agreement. The appellants contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CITCA) ought not to have upheld the action of the Assessing Officer in making the impugned disallowance

GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

ITA 3513/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Miss Vidisha Kalara
Section 69Section 69A

40A(2)(b), on the ground that the appellants have paid job work charges to Cheryl Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. for which there is no agreement. The appellants contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CITCA) ought not to have upheld the action of the Assessing Officer in making the impugned disallowance

GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

ITA 3517/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Miss Vidisha Kalara
Section 69Section 69A

40A(2)(b), on the ground that the appellants have paid job work charges to Cheryl Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. for which there is no agreement. The appellants contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CITCA) ought not to have upheld the action of the Assessing Officer in making the impugned disallowance

GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

ITA 3518/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Miss Vidisha Kalara
Section 69Section 69A

40A(2)(b), on the ground that the appellants have paid job work charges to Cheryl Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. for which there is no agreement. The appellants contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CITCA) ought not to have upheld the action of the Assessing Officer in making the impugned disallowance

ACIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

ITA 4586/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Miss Vidisha Kalara
Section 69Section 69A

40A(2)(b), on the ground that the appellants have paid job work charges to Cheryl Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. for which there is no agreement. The appellants contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CITCA) ought not to have upheld the action of the Assessing Officer in making the impugned disallowance

NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 2288/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 43B

depreciable assets. A specific provision was brought by inserting Clause (ab) in Section 55(2) of the Act by the Finance Act 2001 w.e.f. 01/04/2002 in respect of capital asset being equity shares allotted to a shareholder of a recognized stock exchange under the scheme of corporatization as approved by SEBI and this provision cannot be interpreted in any other

ACIT 4(2), MUMBAI vs. NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 3228/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 43B

depreciable assets. A specific provision was brought by inserting Clause (ab) in Section 55(2) of the Act by the Finance Act 2001 w.e.f. 01/04/2002 in respect of capital asset being equity shares allotted to a shareholder of a recognized stock exchange under the scheme of corporatization as approved by SEBI and this provision cannot be interpreted in any other

ACIT 4(2), MUMBAI vs. NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 2268/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 43B

depreciable assets. A specific provision was brought by inserting Clause (ab) in Section 55(2) of the Act by the Finance Act 2001 w.e.f. 01/04/2002 in respect of capital asset being equity shares allotted to a shareholder of a recognized stock exchange under the scheme of corporatization as approved by SEBI and this provision cannot be interpreted in any other