Search: depreciation | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

13 results for “depreciation”+ Section 32clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,254 Delhi2,853 Bangalore1,149 Chennai1,081 Kolkata685 Ahmedabad462 Hyderabad281 Jaipur247 Karnataka210 Pune194 Chandigarh163 Raipur158 Indore96 Surat84 Amritsar83 Cuttack65 SC60 Rajkot59 Visakhapatnam59 Lucknow51 Ranchi49 Cochin48 Jodhpur38 Telangana34 Guwahati31 Nagpur30 Kerala22 Dehradun21 Calcutta21 Allahabad14 Panaji13 Agra12 Patna9 Orissa5 Punjab & Haryana4 Rajasthan2 D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1 S. B. SINHA MARKANDEY KATJU1 A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1 MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1 Jabalpur1 Tripura1 Varanasi1 Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)24 Section 14A12 Disallowance11 Depreciation10 Addition to Income10 Section 1549 Section 2507 Section 2636 Section 37(1)5 Section 143(2)

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2, BELAGAVI vs. M/S NIRANI SUGARS LIMITED, BELAGAVI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 178/PAN/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji23 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kulkarni, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Rijula Uniyal, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

depreciation as per the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 32. Since two rates of depreciation are prescribed as per Appendix

M/S R. S. SHETYE & BROS,PANAJI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), PANAJI

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

4

Limitation/Time-bar4

ITA 37/PAN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji27 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. No.37/Pan/2023 (A.Y.2016-17) R.S.Shetye & Bros, Vs Acit 1(1), Flat.No.14, 1 St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, . Trionara Apartments, Edc, Patto, New Muncipal Market, Panjim Panaji- Goa-403001. Goa-403001. Pan .No.Aabfr9785N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 3

32(1) is pari-materia of section 2(11) to cover both tangible and intangible assets for depreciation. 37. Section

BANDEKAR BROTHERS PRIVATE LIMITED,VASCO-DA-GAMA, GOA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI, GOA

The appeal of the assessee is PARTLY ALLOWED in aforestated terms

ITA 38/PAN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2013-14 Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Post Box No. 11, Suvarna Bandekar Bldg., Swatantra Path, Vasco-Da-Gama Goa-403802 Pan: Aaacb5502B . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: Mr Pramod & Mr Shriniwas Deshpande [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By: Mr M Satish & Mr Renga Rajan [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 12/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/02/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Assessee’S Appeal Filed U/S 253(1) Of The Income-

For Appellant: Mr Pramod & Mr Shriniwas Deshpande [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish & Mr Renga Rajan [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(14)Section 246ASection 250Section 253(1)Section 37(1)

32(1) is pari-materia of section 2(11) to cover both tangible and intangible assets for depreciation. ITAT-Panaji

DEMPO INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PANAJI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1(2), PANAJI

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED in above terms

ITA 131/PAN/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji01 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing At Pune) आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 131/Pan/2019 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dempo Industries Pvt. Ltd., Dempo House, Campal, Panaji, Goa - 403001 Pan: Aaacu1745F . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Ms Rucha VaidyaFor Respondent: Mr Prabhakar Anand DJ

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 246A(1)Section 250Section 253(1)(a)Section 263Section 32(1)(iia)

section 32(1) unambiguously prescribes that new plant or machinery acquired and installed after 31st March, 2005 subject to 2nd proviso are eligible for additional depreciation

GOA MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED,VASCO vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), PANAJI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 63/PAN/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.63/Pan/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Goa Minerals Private Limited, The Assistant P.B.No.14, Salgaocar House, V Commissioner Of Income Dr.F.L.Gomes Road, S Tax, Circle-2(1), Panaji, Vasco Da Gama, Goa. Goa – 403802 Pan: Aaacg 6716 C Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Veer Raghavan – Ar Revenue By Shri N. Shrikanth – Dr Date Of Hearing 09/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11/10/2023

Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 251(1)

section 32 of the Act. Therefore, in principle, the assessee is eligible for depreciation on the impugned addition made in A.Y. 2013-14 as capital

M/S CHOWGULE AND COMPANY (SALT) PVT. LTD,MORMUGAO vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 2, MARGAO

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of aforesaid observation

ITA 390/PAN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. : 390/Pan/2017 करधििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013 M/S Chowgule & Company (Salt) Pvt Ltd., Chowgule House, Mormugao Harbour, Goa – 403803. Pan: Aabcc 5595 J . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Margao, Goa. . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Ms Hiral Sejpal Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 29/04/2022 आदेश / Order Per Jamlappa D Battull Am; The Present Appeal Filed By The Appellant Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax- Appeals, Panaji-1 [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 09/10/2017 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which In Turn Tousled Out Of Order Of Assessment Of Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-Circle-2, Margoa [For Short “Ao”] Dt. 27/07/2014 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act, For The Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2012-2013. Itat-Panaji Page 1 Of 23

For Appellant: Ms Hiral SejpalFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 10(35)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(1)Section 250

section 115JB. 6.4 Secondly, the appellant in its return claimed a depreciation @80% on diesel generator newly added to the block treating it as “renewable energy device” in terms of Entry III(8)(ix)(m) of Appendix-I of IT-Rules. Ld. AO in the light of judicial precedents, disapproved the classification of diesel generator as “renewable energy device

SURAJDATTA SAGUN MORAJKAR,NERUL vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PANAJI GOA, PANAJI

ITA 122/PAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavankumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 122/Pan/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Surajdatta Sagun Morajkar C/O. Sun Estate Developers, Next To Sal De Goa, Bhatti Waddo, Bardez, Goa-403114 Pan : Aempm7614J . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Vinesh Pikale [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Deshmukh Prakash [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(1)Section 32(1)Section 37(1)Section 41(1)Section 5ASection 68

section 5A of the Act was for the year under consideration engaged in the business of real estate development and construction in the name & style of ‘Sun Estate Developer’ and also a partner in M/s ‘SM Venture.’ The assessee filed his return of income on 30/03/2018 declaring total income at ₹4,47,72,090/- which was subjected to scrutiny

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2 (1), PANAJI vs. M/S V. M. SALGAOCAR & BROTHERS (P) LTD., VASCO

Appeals of the Revenue are DISMISSED

ITA 211/PAN/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji03 Oct 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos. 209 To 211/Pan/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Panaji, Goa . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Ketan Ved [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr N. Shrikanth [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 32Section 37(1)Section 80H

32 of the Act is to be considered as charged & allowed for the purpose computing deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act in appellant’s case for AY 1994-95 to 1996-97 attained finality by the judgement of Hon'ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court dt. 27/03/2012. 3.3 In the light of aforestated finality, the Ld. AO by an order

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2 (1), PANAJI vs. M/S V. M. SALGAOCAR & BROTHERS (P) LTD., VASCO

Appeals of the Revenue are DISMISSED

ITA 209/PAN/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji03 Oct 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos. 209 To 211/Pan/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Panaji, Goa . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Ketan Ved [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr N. Shrikanth [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 32Section 37(1)Section 80H

32 of the Act is to be considered as charged & allowed for the purpose computing deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act in appellant’s case for AY 1994-95 to 1996-97 attained finality by the judgement of Hon'ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court dt. 27/03/2012. 3.3 In the light of aforestated finality, the Ld. AO by an order

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2 (1), PANAJI vs. M/S V. M. SALGAOCAR & BROTHERS (P) LTD., VASCO

Appeals of the Revenue are DISMISSED

ITA 210/PAN/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji03 Oct 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos. 209 To 211/Pan/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Panaji, Goa . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Ketan Ved [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr N. Shrikanth [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 32Section 37(1)Section 80H

32 of the Act is to be considered as charged & allowed for the purpose computing deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act in appellant’s case for AY 1994-95 to 1996-97 attained finality by the judgement of Hon'ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court dt. 27/03/2012. 3.3 In the light of aforestated finality, the Ld. AO by an order

M/S SOVA,PANAJI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI

The appeal of the assessee is PARTLY ALLOWED in aforestated terms

ITA 24/PAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji10 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2018-19 M/S Sova Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho, Panaji, Goa-403001. Pan: Aacfs8862Q . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent

For Appellant: Mr Sukhsagar Syal [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 253(1)Section 263Section 56

32 of the Act and ‘registration fees’ as revenue in nature thus deductible u/s 37(1) of the Act. Without contesting but placing reliance thereon (supra), the Ld. Sayal contended that, to the extent stamp duty paid & claimed in the year under consideration and accepted by the Ld. NFeAC as ‘revenue’ can alone be treated as erroneous and thus prejudicial

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI vs. M/S SOCIADADE DE FOMENTO INDUSTRIAL P. LTD, MARGAO

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 116/PAN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Sh. Nishant Thakkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ranjan Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

section 14A r.w. Rule 8D of I.T. Rules. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the claim of assessee. 22. Still aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal contending, inter alia, that the AO may be directed to calculate the disallowance attributable to exempted income as per Rule 8D (2)(iii) of the I.T. Rules 1962 by considering

SOCIEADADE DE FOMENTO INDL. PVT. LTD.,MARGAO vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MARGAO RANGE, MARGAO

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 105/PAN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Sh. Nishant Thakkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ranjan Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

section 14A r.w. Rule 8D of I.T. Rules. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the claim of assessee. 22. Still aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal contending, inter alia, that the AO may be directed to calculate the disallowance attributable to exempted income as per Rule 8D (2)(iii) of the I.T. Rules 1962 by considering