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.

8 results for “depreciation”+ Section 7clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai5,345Delhi4,834Chennai1,916Bangalore1,827Kolkata1,158Ahmedabad675Hyderabad376Pune328Jaipur315Karnataka225Chandigarh193Raipur173Cochin157Indore148Amritsar110Surat101Visakhapatnam95Lucknow93SC91Rajkot83Telangana67Jodhpur57Cuttack57Nagpur55Ranchi42Guwahati40Patna30Kerala27Calcutta22Panaji21Dehradun14Agra11Allahabad10Punjab & Haryana9Orissa8Jabalpur7Rajasthan6Varanasi6Gauhati2Tripura1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Section 14A6Depreciation6Addition to Income4Section 2603Disallowance3Section 260A2Section 45(2)2Section 143(3)2Section 1482Deduction

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

Depreciation on Intellectual property Assets”? (vi) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and on law Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in granting relief to the assessee on the addition of ₹10,63,042/- on the issue of “Provision on obsolescence of inventory? (vii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

2

ISPAT ALLOYS LTD. vs. DY.COMMNR.OF I.T.

The appeal is allowed in the above terms with no

ITA/14/2003HC Orissa10 Nov 2021

Bench: The Assessing Officer (Ao) & Claimed Depreciation Allowance On The Increased Cost Of The Plant & Machinery Due To Exchange Fluctuations. The Ao In The Assessment Order Dated 31St March 1997 Rejected The Above Claim.

Section 43Section 43A

Sections 142 (1) and 143 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act), the Assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer (AO) and claimed depreciation allowance on the increased cost of the plant and machinery due to exchange fluctuations. The AO in the assessment order dated 31st March 1997 rejected the above claim. 4. In appeal, the Commissioner of Income

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

Section 32 of the Act in that case and therefore, depreciation can be claimed etc. 11. We notice that the question really does not arise from the order of the Tribunal for the simple reason that the Tribunal has not decided the issue. Question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal only when the question is decided

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,BHUBANESWAR vs. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF ORISSA LTD.

In the result, the appeal stands disposed of in terms of

ITA/33/2017HC Orissa14 Nov 2022

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

Section 115Section 115JSection 14Section 14ASection 260Section 45(2)

7. With regard to substantial question No.3, the Tribunal has observed that Lakshmi Commercial Bank (LCB) Ltd., was merged with assessee-Bank in the year 1985. On merger, there was excess of liabilities over assets. Consequently, there was loss of Rs.21.75 crores and the same was claimed as deduction, which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer and the same

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

7. It was on this basis that the AO disallowed the claim of 100% depreciation and reduced it to 25% of the cost. As regards the claim for depreciation for marine pumps and motors, it was noted by the AO that the IT Rules themselves do not mention these equipments to be eligible for 100% depreciation. Consequently depreciation was allowed

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)

depreciation of Rs 9,02,49,544/- being the carry forward figure from the previous year under section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?” We have heard Ms. Smita Das De, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr. J.P. Khaitan, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Pratyush Jhunjhunwala and Ms. Swapna Das, learned advocates appearing

NALCO vs. COMNR.OF INCOME TAX

ITA/133/2012HC Orissa09 May 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 16Th January, 2024 Appearance : Sri Vipul Kundalia, Adv. Smt. Oindrilla Ghosal, Adv. ...For The Appellant. Sri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Sri Sanjoy Bhaumik, Adv. Smt. Swapna Das, Adv. ...For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri Vipul Kundalia, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For The Appellant/Revenue & Sri J.P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Advocate Assisted By Sri Sanjoy Bhaumik & Smt. Swapna Das, Learned Advocates For The Respondent/Assessee. 2. This Appeal Was Admitted By This Court By An Order Dated 30.11.2012 On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law: “1) Whether In View Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Instant Case The Tribunal Erred By Not Considering That Subsides Which May Be Used Freely

Section 43(6)Section 89

depreciable fixed assets chargeable of tax on the basis that the accounting treatment cannot effect the operation of the statutory provisions contained in Section 43(6) of the said Act and for the purpose of income tax the block of assets concept was followed as per the statutory provisions?” Substantial Question of Law No.1 3. So far as the afore

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.NEELACHAL ISPAT NIGAM LTD.

In the result, this Income Tax Appeal is allowed, setting

ITA/11/2018HC Orissa16 Mar 2022

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

Section 143(3)

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. 3. The appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals. 4. The first appellate authority, after a detailed discussion of the relevant provisions, as well as the ITA NO. 11 OF 2018 -4- adjustment of various Rules and Tribunals, allowed the Appeal in part. 5. As per the said order