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.

101 results for “depreciation”+ House Propertyclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,462Delhi1,015Bangalore417Chennai327Ahmedabad259Kolkata232Jaipur143Chandigarh107Pune101Hyderabad98Cochin84Karnataka83Raipur50Indore46Visakhapatnam39Amritsar33Cuttack30Lucknow30Surat20Nagpur18Telangana16Rajkot15SC14Guwahati12Jodhpur12Agra8Panaji6Kerala6Patna5Allahabad3Ranchi2Calcutta2Varanasi2Punjab & Haryana1Gauhati1Rajasthan1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 17172Addition to Income69Section 14A63Section 143(3)58Depreciation47Deduction46Disallowance43Section 5728House Property28Section 143(2)

M/S. COSMOPOLIS CONSTRUCTION,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1),, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 230/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Sept 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 32Section 80I

property is unwarranted, unjustified, contrary to the provisions of the Act and facts prevailing in the case. The addition so made be assessed under the correct head of income. The appellant be granted just and proper relief in this respect. 3. Without prejudice to the above, on facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per provisions & scheme

M/S. COSMOPOLIS CONSTRUCTION,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1),, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee are allowed

Showing 1–20 of 101 · Page 1 of 6

27
Section 80I22
Section 153A19
ITA 231/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Sept 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 32Section 80I

property is unwarranted, unjustified, contrary to the provisions of the Act and facts prevailing in the case. The addition so made be assessed under the correct head of income. The appellant be granted just and proper relief in this respect. 3. Without prejudice to the above, on facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per provisions & scheme

VIVEK NATHURAM GAVHANE,PUNE vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, PUNE

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

ITA 849/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.849/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 69C

House Property then the depreciation claimed on such properties cannot be allowed u/s.32 of the Act for the year under

MARIGOLD PREMISES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER (WARD) -14(3),, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 949/PUN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. Nos.896, 917, 947, 948 & 949/Pun/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2017-18

Section 24

house property’ instead of ‘Business income’ claimed by it. The assessee submitted that such income from Canvassing, Space selling, providing Table space, Parking charges, Games collection, Maintenance charges amounting to Rs.1.65 crore was rightly offered as ‘Business income’, because that was its business activity, against which expenses of Rs.2.22 crore were incurred in addition to depreciation

MARIGOLD PREMISES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER (WARD) -14(5),, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 917/PUN/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. Nos.896, 917, 947, 948 & 949/Pun/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2017-18

Section 24

house property’ instead of ‘Business income’ claimed by it. The assessee submitted that such income from Canvassing, Space selling, providing Table space, Parking charges, Games collection, Maintenance charges amounting to Rs.1.65 crore was rightly offered as ‘Business income’, because that was its business activity, against which expenses of Rs.2.22 crore were incurred in addition to depreciation

MARIGOLD PREMISES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER (WARD) -14(3),, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 948/PUN/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. Nos.896, 917, 947, 948 & 949/Pun/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2017-18

Section 24

house property’ instead of ‘Business income’ claimed by it. The assessee submitted that such income from Canvassing, Space selling, providing Table space, Parking charges, Games collection, Maintenance charges amounting to Rs.1.65 crore was rightly offered as ‘Business income’, because that was its business activity, against which expenses of Rs.2.22 crore were incurred in addition to depreciation

MARIGOLD PREMISES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER (WARD) -14(3),, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 947/PUN/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. Nos.896, 917, 947, 948 & 949/Pun/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2017-18

Section 24

house property’ instead of ‘Business income’ claimed by it. The assessee submitted that such income from Canvassing, Space selling, providing Table space, Parking charges, Games collection, Maintenance charges amounting to Rs.1.65 crore was rightly offered as ‘Business income’, because that was its business activity, against which expenses of Rs.2.22 crore were incurred in addition to depreciation

M/S. MARIGOLD PREMISES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER (HQ) -6(1),, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 896/PUN/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. Nos.896, 917, 947, 948 & 949/Pun/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2017-18

Section 24

house property’ instead of ‘Business income’ claimed by it. The assessee submitted that such income from Canvassing, Space selling, providing Table space, Parking charges, Games collection, Maintenance charges amounting to Rs.1.65 crore was rightly offered as ‘Business income’, because that was its business activity, against which expenses of Rs.2.22 crore were incurred in addition to depreciation

M/S. ANGELICA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1738/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 403/Pun/2015 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vason Engineers Ltd., Theadditional Commissioner Of (Formerly Angelica Properties Pvt. Vs Income Tax, Range1, Pune. Ltd.,) 301, Phoenix, Opp.Residency Club, Bund Garden Road, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 1738/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Angelica Properties Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Opp. Grand Hyatt Hotel, Vs Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vimannagar, Puune – 411 014. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dharmesh Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Naveen Gupta – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Pune Dated 30.01.2015 & 09.06.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. The Assessee In Ita No.403/Pun/2015 For The A.Y.2010-11 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts Enhancing The Income From Sale Of ‘Matrix It Building’ By Changing The Head Of Income From Capital Gains To Business Income Without Complying With The Principles Of Natural Justice & Without Giving Any Opportunity Of Hearing.

Section 14A

Properties Pvt. Ltd.,) 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in assessing the income from sale of ‘Matrix IT Building’ at Rs 1,79,78,415/- as part of business income. a. The Ld. CIT(A)-haserred in law and in facts in not appreciating that the income from sale of 'Matrix IT Building

VASCON ENGINEERS LTD (SUCCESSOR TO ANGELICA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.),PUNE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 403/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 403/Pun/2015 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vason Engineers Ltd., Theadditional Commissioner Of (Formerly Angelica Properties Pvt. Vs Income Tax, Range1, Pune. Ltd.,) 301, Phoenix, Opp.Residency Club, Bund Garden Road, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 1738/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Angelica Properties Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Opp. Grand Hyatt Hotel, Vs Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vimannagar, Puune – 411 014. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dharmesh Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Naveen Gupta – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Pune Dated 30.01.2015 & 09.06.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. The Assessee In Ita No.403/Pun/2015 For The A.Y.2010-11 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts Enhancing The Income From Sale Of ‘Matrix It Building’ By Changing The Head Of Income From Capital Gains To Business Income Without Complying With The Principles Of Natural Justice & Without Giving Any Opportunity Of Hearing.

Section 14A

Properties Pvt. Ltd.,) 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in assessing the income from sale of ‘Matrix IT Building’ at Rs 1,79,78,415/- as part of business income. a. The Ld. CIT(A)-haserred in law and in facts in not appreciating that the income from sale of 'Matrix IT Building

RAMESH PRABHAKAR BACCHEWAR,,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2475/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2475/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha
Section 143(3)Section 22Section 24

house property and thereby making a addition ofRs.607988/- to income of the appellant by making disallowance of depreciation and other

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(3),, SOLAPUR vs. SHRI. ULHAS MALLIKARJUN PATIL,, SOLAPUR

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

ITA 1751/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1751/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, Shri Ulhas Mallikarjun Patil, Ward-2(3), Solapur, Vs Block No.3, Sunandan . Complex, Near Dayanand College, Ravivar Peth, Solapur – 413004. Pan: Akepp 1943 P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Krishna V Gujarathi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 05/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 06/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-7, Pune’S Order Dated 31.08.2018 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-7/Wd- 2(3)/10434/2016-147, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 50

house property. 5.5 Ostensibly, the appellant constructed school building and received rent since A.Y.2008-09. The appellant was showing rent received as business income in return of income. The appellant sold school building for consideration of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- during the year under consideration. The appellant did not claim any depreciation

LAXMINARAYAN RAMSWARUP MANIYAR,JALGAON vs. CIRCLE-1, JALGAON, JALGAON

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1203/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1203/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Laxminarayan Ramswarup Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Jalgaon. Maniyar, Sitaram Ramswarup, 105, Polan Peth, Dana Bazar, Jalgaon- 425001. Pan : Aaqpm9220L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vinay V. Kawdia Revenue By : Shri Harshit Bari Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.03.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1) In The Absence Of Conditions Precedent For Invoking Provisions Of S. 143(1)(A)(Iii) Of The Act, The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Has Erred In Confirming The Adjustment Of Rs. 8,03,196/- Made By Cpc U/S 143(1)(A)(Iii) Of The Act By Denying The Set Off Of Brought Forward Unabsorbed Depreciation Of Earlier Years Against Current Years Income.

For Appellant: Shri Vinay V. KawdiaFor Respondent: Shri Harshit Bari
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

depreciation loss of earlier years against current years income from House property (Rs.82,085/-) and income from other sources (Rs. 7,21,111/-). The assessee

SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 550/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Rajshekhar S. AbhyankarFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 35

property at Bungalow No.70, Koregaon Park amounting to Rs.31,44,000/- and depreciation at Rs.12,97,701/-. 13.1 Background facts of this issue include that there is house

SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 549/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Rajshekhar S. AbhyankarFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 35

property at Bungalow No.70, Koregaon Park amounting to Rs.31,44,000/- and depreciation at Rs.12,97,701/-. 13.1 Background facts of this issue include that there is house

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 934/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Rajshekhar S. AbhyankarFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 35

property at Bungalow No.70, Koregaon Park amounting to Rs.31,44,000/- and depreciation at Rs.12,97,701/-. 13.1 Background facts of this issue include that there is house

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 607/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Rajshekhar S. AbhyankarFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 35

property at Bungalow No.70, Koregaon Park amounting to Rs.31,44,000/- and depreciation at Rs.12,97,701/-. 13.1 Background facts of this issue include that there is house

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI SUBHASH HASTIMAL LODHA,,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1078/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: "याियक सद"य के सम" Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 1078/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 143(1)Section 32(1)

depreciation @80% as applicable for windmills cannot be applied for civil structures. AO made the addition of Rs.4,32,395/- on account of income from house property

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2219/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2219/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Agricultural Produce Market Committee, 1St Floor, Kisan Kranti Building, Market Yard, Station Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Ahmednagar – 414001 …. Pan: Aaala0304R Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha
Section 10Section 143(3)

House Property‟ instead of „Business Income‟. Further learned IT Authorities ought to have allowed corresponding expenditure like repairs / depreciation & other

PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 929/PUN/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

house property on lease for 99 years to the lessee, the entire risk and rewards incidental to ownership of leased assets were also transferred to the lessee, who had right to exploit the benefit including claiming depreciation