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.

5 results for “depreciation”+ Section 32(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,175Delhi2,853Bangalore1,149Chennai1,072Kolkata661Ahmedabad428Hyderabad245Jaipur240Karnataka212Pune177Raipur148Chandigarh138Indore96Amritsar79SC60Visakhapatnam52Lucknow49Ranchi48Cochin47Rajkot46Jodhpur36Surat34Telangana34Guwahati25Kerala22Calcutta21Nagpur19Cuttack18Panaji9Dehradun7Patna7Agra6Allahabad6Orissa5Punjab & Haryana3Rajasthan2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1S. B. SINHA MARKANDEY KATJU1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Jabalpur1D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1Tripura1Varanasi1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Depreciation5Section 260A3Section 323Section 14A3Section 1482Section 2632

COMNR.OF INCOME TAX vs. RKD CONSTRUCTION P.L

In the result the appeal is dismissed and the substantial question of law is

ITA/74/2011HC Orissa20 Nov 2019

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 20Th February, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. …For Appellant The Court : - This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.7.2010 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ‘C’ Bench, Kolkata In Ita No. 583/Kol/2010 For The Assessment Year 2005-06. Heard Learned Counsel For The Appellant Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Who Had Appeared In This Appeal When The Appeal Was Admitted On 11.3.2011. Though It Is Submitted By The Learned Standing Counsel That He Does Not Have Specific Instruction To Appear, Since He Has Appeared When The Appeal Was Admitted We Directed Him To Appear In This Matter & His Appearance Shall Be Regularized By The Concerned Department. The Appeal Was Admitted On The Following Substantial Question Of Law :- I) Whether The Tribunal Committed Substantial Error Of Law In Allowing Depreciation In Terms Of Section 32 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 @ 30% By Totally Over Looking The Fact That The Rate Of Depreciation Applicable Should Be 15% As Provided In Entry No.Iii(2) Of Part-I Of Appendix I Of The Income Tax Rule, 1962?’’

Section 260ASection 263Section 32

Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 @ 30% by totally over looking the fact that the rate of depreciation applicable should be 15% as provided in Entry No.III(2

ASHIRBAD BEHERA vs. ASST.COMMNR.OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal [ITA/7/2020] filed by the

ITA/19/2015HC Orissa03 Mar 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 27Th February, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Smita Das De, Adv. …For The Appellant. Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. …For The Respondent.. The Court : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’ For Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18Th May, 2016 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata (The Tribunal) In Ita No.665/Kol/2012 & Ita No.325/Kol/2012 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. The Appeal Was Admitted On 12Th December, 2019 On The Following Substantial Question Of Law: “(I) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Erred In Law In Holding That The Assessee Has Sufficient Own Funds, Expenditure By Way Of Interest Are Not To Be Taken In Account

Section 14ASection 260ASection 32(1)(iia)

2)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (ii) Whether the assessee is entitled to claim the left over portion of depreciation of Rs 9,02,49,544/- being the carry forward figure from the previous year under section 32

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. INDIAN METALS AND FERRO ALLOYS LTD.

In the result, the substantial questions of law (i)

ITA/10/2021HC Orissa30 Jan 2023

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Acting Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 3Rd April, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. ...For The Appellant Mr. Asim Choudhury, Adv. Mr. Soham Sen, Adv. ...For The Respondent. The Court : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’ For Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated October 17, 2018 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Kolkata (The Tribunal) In Ita No.524/Kol/2017 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration:

Section 260ASection 32Section 92C

2 (i) Whether the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in law in determining the payment under the head of management support service at Arm’s Length Price when the provision of Section 92C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and read with rule 10B & Rule 10C of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, allows for “Reliable and accurate adjustment

INDUSTRIAL INCUBATOR vs. DY.COMMNR.OF I.T.

ITA/179/2004HC Orissa10 Nov 2021

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

2. The appeal itself arises out of an order dated 30th April, 2004 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissing the Appellant-Assesee’s appeal for the Assessment Years (AYs) 1994-95 and 1995-96. The said appeals before the ITAT bearing Nos.168 and 169/CTK/2001 were in turn directed against the common order dated 3rd January

COMNR.OF INCOME TAX vs. NEELACHAL ISPAT NIGA

Appeals are dismissed

ITA/119/2013HC Orissa21 Feb 2022

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE R.K.PATTANAIK

Section 260

2. Assessee is a Private Limited Company. Under the impugned order, the Appellate Tribunal had in fact allowed the appeals of the assessee though termed it as for statistical purposes, had directed the Assessing Officer to examine the claims put forth by the assessee to reconsider the question of allowing depreciation on goodwill part of the assessee and for such