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.

4 results for “depreciation”+ Section 69clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,543Delhi1,350Bangalore532Chennai372Kolkata346Ahmedabad267Jaipur163Hyderabad143Chandigarh90Amritsar79Pune78Raipur71Indore64Cuttack52Visakhapatnam42Ranchi41Surat39Lucknow32Karnataka28Rajkot25Nagpur23Guwahati20Cochin18SC14Telangana12Agra10Dehradun8Patna8Jodhpur7Kerala5Allahabad5Panaji4Calcutta4Jabalpur3Varanasi3MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Punjab & Haryana1Himachal Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)9Section 10B7Section 2636Deduction3Depreciation3Section 143(2)2Section 2502Section 32(1)(iia)2Section 80A2Set Off of Losses

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)

69,257/- claimed u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act on threefold reasons viz; (1) the business of newspaper publication do not amount to manufacturing or production of any article or thing (2) items against which additional depreciation is claimed do not qualify to be plant & machinery and (3) items were purchased prior to previous year relevant to assessment year

2
Disallowance2
Addition to Income2

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI vs. SHIFFER AND MENEZES INDIA PVT. LTD, PANAJI

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 232/PAN/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji02 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2009-10 Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Schiffer & Menezes Income Tax, Circle-1(1), India (P) Ltd. Vs. Panaji, Goa Cmm Building, Rua De Ourem, Panaji, Goa (Pan: Aaccm0106E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri P. R. V. Raghavan, Ca Respondent By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-2, Panaji Vide

For Appellant: Shri P. R. V. Raghavan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. DR
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 72Section 80ASection 80A(1)Section 80B(5)Section 80C

69,41,013/- and for the balance income of Rs.80,41,013/- allowed the exemption u/s. 10B of the Act. For this treatment by the Ld. AO, assessee submitted that the carried forward loss and depreciation were relating to unit B and hence, had to be set off against the income of unit B and not unit

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

69 taxmann.com 170 (SC)] but for each such new or additional issue coming to light & to the scope of 263 after the issuance of first SCN is required to be specifically & invariably be confronted to the assessee in view of the decision in ‘PCIT Vs Universal Music India (P) Ltd.’ [2023, 155 taxmann.com 230 (Bom)]. The Ld. PCIT neither confronted

VGM EXPORT,VASCO vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MARGAO

ITA 114/PAN/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji25 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 114/Pan/2023 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vgm Export Suvarn Bandekar Building, Swatantra Path, Vasco, Goa Pan : Aaafv6197P . . . . . . . Applicant V/S Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Margao Range, Margao. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr P B Deshpande [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Ravindra Hattalli [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 20/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 25/02/2025

For Appellant: Mr P B Deshpande [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ravindra Hattalli [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 40

69,821.60/- (3)IDBI-Panaji a/c had no closing balance as at 31/03/2010 but the difference on account of total receipts & withdrawals relating to transactions of monetary items resulted into a loss of ₹1,00,37,093.93/-. These losses are recognised in the books by passing journal entries at the closure of the year and resultantly claimed as deduction