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.

15 results for “depreciation”+ Section 10A(2)(ia)clear

Sorted by relevance

Bangalore122Mumbai89Delhi71Chennai40Kolkata25Pune15Karnataka12Ahmedabad11Surat10Hyderabad7Jaipur7Cochin4Guwahati2Nagpur2Chandigarh2Rajkot2Varanasi2Visakhapatnam1SC1Telangana1Indore1

Key Topics

Section 80P16Section 10B14Section 10A12Section 143(3)11Deduction10Depreciation10Section 92C9Section 1489Disallowance9Section 139(1)

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE -5, PUNE vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA PVT LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 323/PUN/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Sept 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Chadraker
Section 10ASection 14ASection 35Section 35(1)

10A shall apply to the articles or things or services referred to in sub-section (1) as if— (a) for the figures, letters and word "1st April, 2001", the figures, letters and word "1st April, 2006" had been substituted; (b) for the word "undertaking", the words "undertaking, being the Unit" had been substituted. (9) The provisions of sub-section

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S SUNGARD SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

8
Section 407
Transfer Pricing6

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 519/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 154Section 40Section 92C

2. Denial of deduction under section 10A of the Act to Unit I, Bangalore. 2.1. The Learned AO has erred in not considering the facts and submission made by the Appellant, and not allowing claim for deduction under section 10A of the Act to Unit I (based in Bangalore) which was inadvertently missed out by the Appellant in its return

SUNGARD SOLUTIONS (INDIA) P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 338/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 154Section 40Section 92C

2. Denial of deduction under section 10A of the Act to Unit I, Bangalore. 2.1. The Learned AO has erred in not considering the facts and submission made by the Appellant, and not allowing claim for deduction under section 10A of the Act to Unit I (based in Bangalore) which was inadvertently missed out by the Appellant in its return

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. SUNGARD SOLUTIONS (I) PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 463/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 154Section 40Section 92C

2. Denial of deduction under section 10A of the Act to Unit I, Bangalore. 2.1. The Learned AO has erred in not considering the facts and submission made by the Appellant, and not allowing claim for deduction under section 10A of the Act to Unit I (based in Bangalore) which was inadvertently missed out by the Appellant in its return

M/S SUNGARD SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 540/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 154Section 40Section 92C

2. Denial of deduction under section 10A of the Act to Unit I, Bangalore. 2.1. The Learned AO has erred in not considering the facts and submission made by the Appellant, and not allowing claim for deduction under section 10A of the Act to Unit I (based in Bangalore) which was inadvertently missed out by the Appellant in its return

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. SAFE PRO PACK LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1545/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1545/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 वष"

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 10BSection 115JSection 143(3)Section 28Section 32(2)Section 72

2 stands adjudicated.” 5. Aggrieved with the order of CIT(A) the Revenue is in appeal before us with the grounds extracted above. 6. At the outset, mentioning that it is a covered issue, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the appeal is filed with the issue relating to the calculation of deduction u/s.10B

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. BAG ELECTRONICS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1550/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1545/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 वष"

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 10BSection 115JSection 143(3)Section 28Section 32(2)Section 72

2 stands adjudicated.” 5. Aggrieved with the order of CIT(A) the Revenue is in appeal before us with the grounds extracted above. 6. At the outset, mentioning that it is a covered issue, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the appeal is filed with the issue relating to the calculation of deduction u/s.10B

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1857/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

Section 10ASection 115JSection 391Section 72ASection 74

depreciation of the amalgamating company in relation to the income under the head “Profit and gains of business or profession”. It is not a panacea for all the tax related issues of amalgamation, so as to have application insofar as the other tax entitlements, privileges or benefits in the hands of the amalgamating company, are concerned. 14. Section 74 deals

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -11,, PUNE vs. CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED , (FORMERLY IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD.),, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1935/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

Section 10ASection 115JSection 391Section 72ASection 74

depreciation of the amalgamating company in relation to the income under the head “Profit and gains of business or profession”. It is not a panacea for all the tax related issues of amalgamation, so as to have application insofar as the other tax entitlements, privileges or benefits in the hands of the amalgamating company, are concerned. 14. Section 74 deals

SANCHAR GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,JUNNAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 8, PUNE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2432/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Sharad Shah &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 250Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

10A or section 10AA or section 10B or section 10BA or under any provision of this Chapter under the heading "C.—Deductions in respect of certain incomes", no deduction shall be allowed to him thereunder.’ 8. This section provides that where an assessee fails to make a claim in his return of income for any deduction, amongst others, the sections

SANCHAR GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,JUNNAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 8, PUNE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2433/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Sharad Shah &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 250Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

10A or section 10AA or section 10B or section 10BA or under any provision of this Chapter under the heading "C.—Deductions in respect of certain incomes", no deduction shall be allowed to him thereunder.’ 8. This section provides that where an assessee fails to make a claim in his return of income for any deduction, amongst others, the sections

E-GAIN COMMUNICATIONS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2),, PUNE

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

ITA 2675/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2675/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 E-Gain Communications Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune. Ltd., Office No.702, 7Th Floor, B-1, The Cerebrum It Park, Vadgaon Sheri, Kalyani Nagar, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaacn9946R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agarwal Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai : Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.06.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 13, Pune. [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 11.08.2017 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956. It Is Wholly Owned Subsidiary Of Egain Communication

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal
Section 10ASection 92C

10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). The assessee company also reported the following international transactions :- Sr. Nature of the AE Description Amount in Rs. Method used No. 1 eGain Communication Corp. Software 30,42,26,067 TNMM Development Services 2 eGain Communication Corp. Reimbursement of 22,04,073 CUP expenses Recd 3 eGain Communication Corp. Reimbursement

JAIHIND NAGARI SAHKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- MALEGAON, NASHIK

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

ITA 135/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.135/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Jaihind Nagari Sahkari Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Malegaon. Patsanstha Maryadit, Main Road, Raunaqabad, Malegaon, Nashik- 423203. Pan : Aaaaj8229M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanket Joshi Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Gawali Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.07.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 28.11.2022 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That Appellant Is A Co- Operative Society Registered Under The Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Providing Credit Facilities To Its Members & Accepting The Deposits From Its Members. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali
Section 1Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80A(5)Section 80CSection 80P

10A or section 10AA or section 10B or section 10BA or under any provision of this Chapter under the heading "C.—Deductions in respect of certain incomes", no deduction shall be allowed to him thereunder.’ 8. This section provides that where an assessee fails to make a claim in his return of income for any deduction, amongst others, the sections

M/S. KPIT TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX,,

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2614/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg
Section 10ASection 14ASection 32

depreciation of Rs.3.39 crore and odd on `Right to render BPO services’ . This ground is allowed. 5. Ground No. 2 is against the confirmation of disallowance of Rs.3,16,221/- made u/s.14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called `the Act’) read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) in the computation of income under the normal provisions

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 342/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.342/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

Section 115JSection 195(2)Section 201(1)Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

ia) should not be applied. 19. This argument of the ld. AR, though sounds attractive at first flush, but, loses its shine on an in-depth analysis. There are two reasons for our not concurring with the same. First, the earlier judgment in Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (supra) relates to the assessment years 1999-200 and 2001-02 and obviously