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.

313 results for “depreciation”+ Section 17(5)(d)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,326Delhi2,490Bangalore1,322Chennai1,154Ahmedabad771Kolkata538Jaipur351Hyderabad347Pune313Chandigarh184Indore172Visakhapatnam160Cochin141Surat138Cuttack135Raipur134Karnataka99Rajkot66Lucknow66SC63Ranchi49Nagpur47Guwahati41Jodhpur34Telangana27Amritsar26Agra22Kerala16Allahabad14Panaji12Varanasi9Dehradun8Patna7Jabalpur4Calcutta3Rajasthan2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Orissa1Punjab & Haryana1D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)72Addition to Income67Disallowance55Section 3539Depreciation36Section 14A35Deduction33Section 14832Section 12A31Section 263

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 8(2),, PUNE vs. JAGTAP PATIL PROMOTERS & BUILDERS ,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is Allowed

ITA 35/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.35/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer, Jagtap Patil Promoters & Ward-8(2), Pune. Vs Builders, S.No.152, Pimple Gurav, Pune – 411061. Pan: Aagfj 0403 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suniol Ganoo – Ar Revenue By Shri M.M.Chate – Dr Date Of Hearing 29/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue I.E. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(2), Pune For The A.Y. 2014-15 Against The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A)- 6, Pune Dated 04.10.2017 Emanating From The Assessment Order Dated 30/12/2016 Passed By The Ito Ward 8(2) Pune U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Not Appreciating That It Was Only After Scrutiny Proceedings Started That The Assessee Paid The Mat. Thus By Filing Nil Return & Not Claiming Deduction U/S 80Ib(10) The Assessee Was Trying To Evade Payment Of Taxes. The Claim Of The Assessee That Filing Of Nil Return Was Clerical Error Does Not Hold Ground? 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Not Appreciating The Ratio Laid

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(b)Section 80ASection 80I

D were not complete as certified by the Registered Valuer, the Club House was not complete, ITA No.35/PUN/2018for A.Y. 2014-15 Jagtap Patil Promoters & Builders [A] therefore, the Project was not complete. The local authority had approved the project on 29/03/2007, there for to be eligible for deduction u/s 80IB(10) the project should have been completed before 31/03/2012

Showing 1–20 of 313 · Page 1 of 16

...
29
Section 143(2)28
Section 271(1)(c)23

M/S GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 427/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 10(35)Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

17 Vaspeth II (MS) 10 MW 2015-16 2018-19 No 80IA deduction Wind claimed from the year. There was a loss of Rs.12,91,11,752/- during the year 18 Vaspeth III (MS) 4 MW 2015-16 2018-19 No 80IA deduction Wind claimed from the year. There was a loss of Rs.4,98,15,389/- during the year

DCIT CIRCLE 7, BODHI TOWER SALISBURY PARK vs. L B KUNJIR, PUNE

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

ITA 1046/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69ASection 69BSection 80I

17. The only grievance of the assessee in the grounds raised is regarding the order of the Assessing Officer in not considering the closing work in progress of Rs.3,11,76,525/- as on 31.03.2015 as the opening work in progress as on 01.04.2015 i.e. assessment year 2016-17. Since while deciding the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

M/S. L.B. KUNJIR,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 418/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69ASection 69BSection 80I

17. The only grievance of the assessee in the grounds raised is regarding the order of the Assessing Officer in not considering the closing work in progress of Rs.3,11,76,525/- as on 31.03.2015 as the opening work in progress as on 01.04.2015 i.e. assessment year 2016-17. Since while deciding the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

DCIT, PUNE vs. L B KUNJIR, PUNE

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

ITA 1088/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69ASection 69BSection 80I

17. The only grievance of the assessee in the grounds raised is regarding the order of the Assessing Officer in not considering the closing work in progress of Rs.3,11,76,525/- as on 31.03.2015 as the opening work in progress as on 01.04.2015 i.e. assessment year 2016-17. Since while deciding the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

M/S. L.B. KUNJIR,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 417/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69ASection 69BSection 80I

17. The only grievance of the assessee in the grounds raised is regarding the order of the Assessing Officer in not considering the closing work in progress of Rs.3,11,76,525/- as on 31.03.2015 as the opening work in progress as on 01.04.2015 i.e. assessment year 2016-17. Since while deciding the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7, PUNE vs. LB KUNJIR, PUNE

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

ITA 240/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69ASection 69BSection 80I

17. The only grievance of the assessee in the grounds raised is regarding the order of the Assessing Officer in not considering the closing work in progress of Rs.3,11,76,525/- as on 31.03.2015 as the opening work in progress as on 01.04.2015 i.e. assessment year 2016-17. Since while deciding the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

M/S. VARDHAN NUTRITIONS AND CHEMICALS PVT. LTD.,,RAIGAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 662/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.662/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Vardhan Nutritions & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.535/2, Ershimgathi Road, Old Thana Naka Road, Thana Naka, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Panvel, Dist. Raigad. …. Pan: Aabcv9194J Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Panvel

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 143(3)Section 72Section 72(1)

17. Even on merit we find the issue has to be decided in favour of the assessee. We find the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ace Builders Pvt. Ltd. reported in 281 ITR 210 has held that there was nothing in section 50 to suggest that the fiction created in section 50 is not only restricted

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

17. In the A.Y. 2011-12, the revenue raised an additional issue relating to relief granted by the CIT(A) with reference to the applicability of provisions of section 80IA(5) of the Act. 18. Regarding the grounds raised with regard to the common issue of attracting the provisions of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act, Ld. AR narrated

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

17. In the A.Y. 2011-12, the revenue raised an additional issue relating to relief granted by the CIT(A) with reference to the applicability of provisions of section 80IA(5) of the Act. 18. Regarding the grounds raised with regard to the common issue of attracting the provisions of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act, Ld. AR narrated

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

17. In the A.Y. 2011-12, the revenue raised an additional issue relating to relief granted by the CIT(A) with reference to the applicability of provisions of section 80IA(5) of the Act. 18. Regarding the grounds raised with regard to the common issue of attracting the provisions of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act, Ld. AR narrated

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)

d) of the IT Act. 2. The L.d. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that claim u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) was claimed by filing return of income in response to notice u/s 148 which was the first return of income filed by the assessee for the assessment year. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated

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)

d) of the IT Act. 2. The L.d. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that claim u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) was claimed by filing return of income in response to notice u/s 148 which was the first return of income filed by the assessee for the assessment year. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated

SETH RAMDAS NATHUBHAI DHARMADAYA VISHWASTA NIDHI,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,(EXEMPTIONS) -1,, PUNE

ITA 928/PUN/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Seth Ramdas Nathubhai Dharmadaya Vs. Ito Vishwasta Nidhi, (Exemptions)-1, C/O. Shah Khandelwal Jain & Pune Associates, Chartered Accountants, Level 3, Business Bay, Plot No.84, Wellesley Road, Near Rto, Pune 411 001 Pan : Aaatr6805N Appellant Respondent

Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(2)Section 13(2)(c)

depreciation from earlier years against the income so assessed. 3. The relevant facts in this case are that the assessee trust is registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 vide No.E1150, Pune dated 13-10-1987. The assessee is registered u/s.12A of the Act vide registration No.4597 dated 21-06-1989. The assessee trust was formed with various aims

M/S KOLTE-PATIL INTEGRATED TOWNSHIPS LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7, PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 1990/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 154

17-12-2024 Date of pronouncement : 18-12-2024 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, VP : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 02.08.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2021-22. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged

NIHILENT TECHNOLOGIES P.LTD.,PUNE vs. ITO, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 2428/PUN/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 92C

depreciation, whichever is lower.‖ 8. We find that the decision rendered by AAR in the case of Rastriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. (supra) and the order of Tribunal in the case of Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd. (supra) are unanimous in the manner of computation of book profits, as provided in clause (iii) to Explanation 1 of section 115JB

COVENTYA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 974/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 36(1)(v)Section 37

D India Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra) has held that specified intangible assets, viz. business claims, business information, business records, contracts, employees and know-how acquired by assessee under slump sale agreement are in nature of „business or commercial rights of similar nature‟ specified in section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and are accordingly eligible for depreciation under that section

COVENTYA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 975/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 36(1)(v)Section 37

D India Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra) has held that specified intangible assets, viz. business claims, business information, business records, contracts, employees and know-how acquired by assessee under slump sale agreement are in nature of „business or commercial rights of similar nature‟ specified in section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and are accordingly eligible for depreciation under that section

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-5, PUNE vs. SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PVT. LTD., PUNE

In the result, ITA Nos. 154 to 156/PUN/2025 filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA

ITA 114/PUN/2025[2020]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Dec 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.154 To 156/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2016-17 To 2018-19

For Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(xviii)Section 43

d) While deleting the adjustment made u/s 143 (1) (a) of the Act, in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21, the CIT (A) has held that where the assessee has accounted for the government subsidy from the cost of the asset for determination of the actual cost of asset for claiming depreciation, subsidy

SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PVT. LTD,PUNE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, PUNE

In the result, ITA Nos. 154 to 156/PUN/2025 filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA

ITA 154/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.154 To 156/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2016-17 To 2018-19

For Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(xviii)Section 43

d) While deleting the adjustment made u/s 143 (1) (a) of the Act, in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21, the CIT (A) has held that where the assessee has accounted for the government subsidy from the cost of the asset for determination of the actual cost of asset for claiming depreciation, subsidy