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.

6 results for “depreciation”+ Section 36clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,654Delhi2,412Bangalore951Chennai860Kolkata496Ahmedabad413Jaipur222Hyderabad186Raipur148Chandigarh142Pune121Karnataka103Surat96Indore81Amritsar74Visakhapatnam57Rajkot54Cochin53Lucknow45SC42Cuttack39Ranchi37Telangana33Guwahati31Nagpur30Jodhpur26Kerala21Dehradun11Patna9Calcutta8Varanasi8Panaji6Agra5Rajasthan5Allahabad4Punjab & Haryana4Jabalpur3D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1Tripura1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Disallowance6Addition to Income5Section 143(1)4Section 143(2)4Section 143(3)3Section 14A3Depreciation3Capital Gains3Section 253(1)2Section 250

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 at the higher rate @80% before the due date of furnishing the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (ii) The ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.2,75,00,000/- as per section 36

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

2
Section 1442
Section 246A2
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

36. Capital asset under the provisions of the Act could be classified into twin type, depreciable and non-depreciable. Though the Act defined no term as 'depreciable asset' however, the terminology is associated to assessee’s engagement with business or profession. The inherent meaning is that the capital asset is exploited by assessee in pursuit of business objectives or professional

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)

section 2(14) of the Act and further turned down the alternative ground of consequential depreciation thereon. ITAT-Panaji Page 4 of 39 M/s Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT ITA No. 038/PAN/2025 AY: 2013-14 3.4 Aggrieved by the actions of tax authorities below, the assessee company came in present appeal on following sole & substantive ground (as raised

SALGAOCAR MINING INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD,PANAJI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, MARGAO

The appeal of the assessee is PARTLY ALLOWED in aforestated terms

ITA 132/PAN/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji29 Jan 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2006-2007 M/S Salgaocar Mining Industries Pvt Ltd. Salgaonkar Bhava, Altino, Panaji, Goa-403001. Pan: Aabcs8862N . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Margao, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: Mr Sukhsagar Syal [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 20/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/01/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Assessee’S Appeal Filed U/S 253(1) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Impugns The Order Dt. 20/03/2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals-2), Panaji [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] Which In Turn Dealt With Order Dt. 20/12/2011 Passed U/S 144 Of The Act By Dcit, Circle-1, Margao Goa [‘Ld. Ao’] Anent To Assessment Year 2006-07.[‘Ay’]

For Appellant: Mr Sukhsagar Syal [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 246ASection 250Section 253(1)

36) which alleges the action of Ld. CIT(A) for not holding the impugned assessment one as without jurisdiction and bad in law in terms of section 147 to 151 of the Act, raised first time before the Tribunal is to be admitted for adjudication in the light of ‘National Thermal Power

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

depreciation etc and portion of said expenses will be attributable to maintenance of the investment portfolio and to the earning of the exempt income as rightly concluded by the A.O. Thus the disallowance by invoking Rule 8D is justified and is in accordance with the Bombay High Court decision in the case of M/s. Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing

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

depreciation etc and portion of said expenses will be attributable to maintenance of the investment portfolio and to the earning of the exempt income as rightly concluded by the A.O. Thus the disallowance by invoking Rule 8D is justified and is in accordance with the Bombay High Court decision in the case of M/s. Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing