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.

120 results for “depreciation”+ Section 139(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,020 Delhi847 Bangalore360 Chennai301 Kolkata235 Ahmedabad206 Jaipur205 Hyderabad133 Raipur129 Pune120 Chandigarh112 Indore91 Cochin81 Karnataka58 Surat52 Visakhapatnam49 Amritsar46 Guwahati36 Nagpur35 Lucknow34 Cuttack27 SC20 Jodhpur19 Allahabad13 Telangana11 Patna10 Rajkot7 Ranchi6 Panaji6 Dehradun5 Punjab & Haryana5 Agra3 Calcutta2 Varanasi2 D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1 Jabalpur1 Tripura1

Key Topics

Section 80I80 Section 143(3)69 Addition to Income69 Section 139(1)51 Section 153A51 Section 143(1)43 Disallowance43 Deduction40 Section 80J39 Section 115J

SUN INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 647/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani

Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

139(3) or Section 80 prohibiting carry forward of depreciation computed based on return filed under Section 139(4). So much

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

Showing 1–20 of 120 · Page 1 of 6

39

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1155/MUM/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda

Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

depreciation on the same will also be allowed. 17. So far as the issue of contribution to approved superannuation fund is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) relying on various decisions held that deduction in respect of contribution made to approved superannuation fund within limit prescribed will be wholly allowed in assessment year relating to previous year in which payment

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1153/MUM/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda

Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

depreciation on the same will also be allowed. 17. So far as the issue of contribution to approved superannuation fund is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) relying on various decisions held that deduction in respect of contribution made to approved superannuation fund within limit prescribed will be wholly allowed in assessment year relating to previous year in which payment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 545/PUN/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda

Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

depreciation on the same will also be allowed. 17. So far as the issue of contribution to approved superannuation fund is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) relying on various decisions held that deduction in respect of contribution made to approved superannuation fund within limit prescribed will be wholly allowed in assessment year relating to previous year in which payment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 544/PUN/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda

Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

depreciation on the same will also be allowed. 17. So far as the issue of contribution to approved superannuation fund is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) relying on various decisions held that deduction in respect of contribution made to approved superannuation fund within limit prescribed will be wholly allowed in assessment year relating to previous year in which payment

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1154/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda

Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

depreciation on the same will also be allowed. 17. So far as the issue of contribution to approved superannuation fund is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) relying on various decisions held that deduction in respect of contribution made to approved superannuation fund within limit prescribed will be wholly allowed in assessment year relating to previous year in which payment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 543/PUN/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda

Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

depreciation on the same will also be allowed. 17. So far as the issue of contribution to approved superannuation fund is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) relying on various decisions held that deduction in respect of contribution made to approved superannuation fund within limit prescribed will be wholly allowed in assessment year relating to previous year in which payment

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. SAGAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1812/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Suhas Bora and Riya OswalFor Respondent: Shri S. Sadananda Singh, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 269SSection 37Section 68

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year): Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

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

3 appellant society violated the provisions of section 80A(5) of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. The ld. Counsel placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Chirakkal Service Co- Operative Bank Ltd. Kannur

DCIT CIRCLE 1 NASHIK, NASHIK vs. SHREE SAI PROPERTIES, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 987/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year and for which a prior notice under Section 148 would be required to be issued. Section 147 does not contemplate an eventuality which Section 153A or Section 153C contemplates, the basis of which is inter alia a search action under Section 132 being resorted as noted hereinabove. Thus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHARP DESIGNERS & ENGINEERS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

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

ITA 2283/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2263/Pun/2014 आयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2010-11 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 14ASection 40A(2)(b)Section 80ASection 80I

3. The lower authorities erred in law and on facts in taking depreciated value of Fixed assets instead of Gross Block of assets as appearing in audited financial results while arriving at the interest disallowance under rule 8D.” 4. Briefly stated relevant facts are that the assessee is a company engaged in the manufacturing of Engineering goods and Generation

SHARP DESIGNERS AND ENGINEERS INDIA P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

ITA 2263/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2263/Pun/2014 आयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2010-11 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 14ASection 40A(2)(b)Section 80ASection 80I

3. The lower authorities erred in law and on facts in taking depreciated value of Fixed assets instead of Gross Block of assets as appearing in audited financial results while arriving at the interest disallowance under rule 8D.” 4. Briefly stated relevant facts are that the assessee is a company engaged in the manufacturing of Engineering goods and Generation

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. SHARP DESIGNER AND ENGINEERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

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

ITA 1262/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2263/Pun/2014 आयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2010-11 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 14ASection 40A(2)(b)Section 80ASection 80I

3. The lower authorities erred in law and on facts in taking depreciated value of Fixed assets instead of Gross Block of assets as appearing in audited financial results while arriving at the interest disallowance under rule 8D.” 4. Briefly stated relevant facts are that the assessee is a company engaged in the manufacturing of Engineering goods and Generation

M/S. BILCARE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 334/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Gupta

3) of section 139. 55. The Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nalva Investments Ltd. in ITA No.822/2005, judgment dated 07.08.2020 in a case involving the identical facts held that in the return of income when the assessee had claimed erroneous claim for a lesser amount of loss, which was corrected during the course

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE vs. M/S. BILCARE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 273/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Gupta

3) of section 139. 55. The Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nalva Investments Ltd. in ITA No.822/2005, judgment dated 07.08.2020 in a case involving the identical facts held that in the return of income when the assessee had claimed erroneous claim for a lesser amount of loss, which was corrected during the course

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)

3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that Sec 80AC was amended from A.Y. 2018-19 and applicable prospectively. 4. The appellant craves for to leave, add, alter, modify, delete above grounds of appeal before or at the time hearing, in the interest of natural justice.” 5. The common contention of the assessee in the instant

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)

3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that Sec 80AC was amended from A.Y. 2018-19 and applicable prospectively. 4. The appellant craves for to leave, add, alter, modify, delete above grounds of appeal before or at the time hearing, in the interest of natural justice.” 5. The common contention of the assessee in the instant

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX vs. D.M. CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeals of Revenue for assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10 are allowed and for assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13 are dismissed

ITA 1805/PUN/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Mar 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1805 To 1811/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2012-13 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Central Circle, Kolhapur …. Vs. D.M. Corporation Pvt. Ltd., 240/B, Mohite House, Gen. Thorat Marg, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Tarabai Park, Kolhapur Pan: Aadcm6281H

For Appellant: Ms. Nirupama Kotru, CITFor Respondent: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /

Section 119(2)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

139(1) of the Act and without any relaxation under section 119(2) of the Act being sought from CBDT for such delay, can the assessee be held to entitle to claim the deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act. The second issue is in relation to additional income offered in the statement recorded under section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX vs. D.M. CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeals of Revenue for assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10 are allowed and for assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13 are dismissed

ITA 1810/PUN/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1805 To 1811/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2012-13 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Central Circle, Kolhapur …. Vs. D.M. Corporation Pvt. Ltd., 240/B, Mohite House, Gen. Thorat Marg, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Tarabai Park, Kolhapur Pan: Aadcm6281H

For Appellant: Ms. Nirupama Kotru, CITFor Respondent: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /

Section 119(2)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

139(1) of the Act and without any relaxation under section 119(2) of the Act being sought from CBDT for such delay, can the assessee be held to entitle to claim the deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act. The second issue is in relation to additional income offered in the statement recorded under section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX vs. D.M. CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeals of Revenue for assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10 are allowed and for assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13 are dismissed

ITA 1807/PUN/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1805 To 1811/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2012-13 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Central Circle, Kolhapur …. Vs. D.M. Corporation Pvt. Ltd., 240/B, Mohite House, Gen. Thorat Marg, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Tarabai Park, Kolhapur Pan: Aadcm6281H

For Appellant: Ms. Nirupama Kotru, CITFor Respondent: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /

Section 119(2)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

139(1) of the Act and without any relaxation under section 119(2) of the Act being sought from CBDT for such delay, can the assessee be held to entitle to claim the deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act. The second issue is in relation to additional income offered in the statement recorded under section