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.

24 results for “depreciation”+ Section 194clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai414Delhi291Bangalore126Ahmedabad106Chennai76Kolkata68Jaipur64Cochin47Hyderabad41Raipur37Pune24Chandigarh21Amritsar17Indore14Cuttack13Lucknow11Karnataka9Visakhapatnam8Surat7Guwahati5Jodhpur4SC4Nagpur3Allahabad3Telangana3Agra2Calcutta2Ranchi2Kerala2Punjab & Haryana1Patna1Rajkot1

Key Topics

Section 26322Addition to Income19Section 143(3)18Depreciation13Disallowance11Deduction7Section 92C6Section 41(1)5Section 1325Section 148

M/S JOHNSON MATHEY CHEMICALS INDIA PVT. LTD,THANE vs. CIT II, THANE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 4368/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.4368/M/2011 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S. Johnson Matthey Chemicals India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.-6A, Midc Industrial Estate, Taloja, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Dist. Raigad, Maharashtra – 410208 …. Pan : Aabcj1620M Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii, Thane …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Smt. Vasanti Patel प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Rajeev Kumar, Cit घोषणा की तारीख / सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.07.2018

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala &For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 43(6)

section 263 of the Act in assessment year 2007-08 and passed an order of enhancement for the aforesaid years and decided the issue of allowability of depreciation against the assessee. The Commissioner issued show cause notice to the assessee dated 29.11.2010, wherein vide para 1 the facts of the case were noted and the Commissioner further observed as under

Showing 1–20 of 24 · Page 1 of 2

5
Section 43(1)5
Section 14A4

KPIT CUMMINS GLOBAL BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee relating to assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed, appeal of assessee relating to assessment year 2009-10 and appeal of Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 525/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.246/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

depreciation may be allowed to the assessee. He fairly pointed out that ground of appeal No.3 was on without prejudice basis to allow the entire claim of deduction under section 37(1) of the Act. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee here also referred section 10A of the Act on higher income so assessed in the hands of assessee

KPIT CUMMINS GLOBAL BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LTD., (NOW MERGED WITH KPIT CUMMINS INFOSYSTEMS LTD),PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 11(1), PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee relating to assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed, appeal of assessee relating to assessment year 2009-10 and appeal of Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 246/PUN/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.246/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

depreciation may be allowed to the assessee. He fairly pointed out that ground of appeal No.3 was on without prejudice basis to allow the entire claim of deduction under section 37(1) of the Act. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee here also referred section 10A of the Act on higher income so assessed in the hands of assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. KPIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee relating to assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed, appeal of assessee relating to assessment year 2009-10 and appeal of Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 459/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.246/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

depreciation may be allowed to the assessee. He fairly pointed out that ground of appeal No.3 was on without prejudice basis to allow the entire claim of deduction under section 37(1) of the Act. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee here also referred section 10A of the Act on higher income so assessed in the hands of assessee

ITO, WARD-2(2), PUNE, PUNE vs. ANNAPURNA MAHILA CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED, PUNE

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

ITA 2108/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 56Section 69CSection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

194/-, The reply of the assessee society has been carefully perused and the claim of the assessee cannot be accepted and excess depreciation debited to income & expenditure account is treated to be unexplained within the meaning of section

MAHATMA PHULE GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKAR PAT SANSTHA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. PCIT-1, PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 1049/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19 Mahatma Phule Gramin Bigarsheti Pcit-1, Pune Sahakar Pat Sanstha Vs. A/P Hattiwade, Ajara, Kolhapur – 416505 Pan: Aaaam2608K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None (Written Submission Filed) Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-01-2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: None (written submission filed)For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

194 ITD 272 (Mumbai- Trib.) 8 13. The Ld. DR on the other hand has also filed a detailed written submission. He submitted that reliance of the assessee on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (supra) is mis-placed. In that case, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD., AURANGABAD. vs. TAPADIYA CONSTRUCTION LTD, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1375/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 269SSection 271D

depreciation claimed. (Refer: Pages 32 to 35) 7.3 Very significantly, the books of accounts and the book result have not been rejected. This is very crucial because, as pointed out at para 6.1 above, the surrender in the form of extra amenities was distinct than the surrender towards extra profit from the project. 7.4 Some of the salient features

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, NASHIK vs. M/S. ASHOKA DHANKUNI KHARAGPUR TOLLWAY LIMITED,, NASHIK

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 143/PUN/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.143/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S.Ashoka Dhankuni Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Vs Kharagpur Tollway Ltd., Nashik. . S No 861, Ashoka House, Ashoka Marg, Vadala, Nashik. Pan: Aajca 2569 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri B Koteswra Rao – Dr Date Of Hearing 08/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 27/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Pune- 12’S Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2020-21/1031080551(1) Dated 28.02.2021, In Proceedings U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

Section 250Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

depreciation claim amounting to Rs.3,47,61,85,194,/- pertaining to its “right to collect toll” as an intangible asset under section

D vs. DISHTI INDUSTRIES LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 1277/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1277/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 14ASection 2(47)Section 43(1)

depreciation claimed on the capital subsidies ignoring the provisions of Explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act and finally Ground No.5 relates to disallowance u/s.14A of the Act. Of all the 3 issues, the addition of Rs.4,84,34,491/- is a major issue and the relevant details are discussed as follows. 4. The general facts include that

M/S. PIMPRI- CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,PUNE vs. JT.. CIT RG-10 PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 613/PUN/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Oct 2018AY 2003-04

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

For Appellant: Shri Kihor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Meena
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 148Section 263

depreciation amounting to Rs.1.68 crore and odd to the excess of Income over expenditure to the tune of Rs.5.74 crore and odd. The Ld. CIT, invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act, held that the assessment order passed by the AO on 12-12-2008 was both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue inasmuch

M/S. PIMPRI- CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,PUNE vs. JT.. CIT RG-10 PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 614/PUN/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Oct 2018AY 2004-05

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

For Appellant: Shri Kihor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Meena
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 148Section 263

depreciation amounting to Rs.1.68 crore and odd to the excess of Income over expenditure to the tune of Rs.5.74 crore and odd. The Ld. CIT, invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act, held that the assessment order passed by the AO on 12-12-2008 was both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue inasmuch

AYOKI FABRICON PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2155/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2155/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Ayoki Fabricon Pvt. Ltd., 137 To 139, Akshay Complex, Dhole Patil Road, Pune. Pan : Aabca5780F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle- 1(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak & Shri Nimit Gujarathi Revenue By : Shri Yogesh Kamat, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.12.2018 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Pune Dated 14.06.2016 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Additional Depreciation Of Rs.1,10,53,748/- U/S 32(1)(Iia) On New Plant & Machinery On The Ground That The Assessee Was Not Engaged In The Business Of Manufacture Or Production Of Any Article Or Thing. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Ignoring The Fact That – I) The Details Furnished To The Assessing Officer By The Assessee During The Assessment Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Were Same As Were Furnished During The Assessment Proceedings U/S 143(3) & Therefore.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak &For Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kamat, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)

section 147 of the Act. 5 8. Explaining the background facts of the case, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessment proceedings were finalized by the Assessing Officer, who passed the well reasoned order for the earlier assessment years 2008-09, 2010-11 and 2011-12. In these assessment years, the assessee made a similar claim of additional

MANGESH KRISHNATH EKBOTE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 3,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1906/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

Section 144Section 43(1)Section 68

section 43(1), we hold that the authorities below were not justified in disallowing 4 Mangesh K. Ekbote depreciation on fixed assets to the extent of Rs.45,909/-. The impugned order is overturned to this extent. 5. The only other issue which survives in this appeal is against treating profit on sale and purchase of shares amounting to Rs.34

M/S. MAN TRUCKS INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 582/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Pankil SanghviFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act. The other additions on account of amortization of lease charges of Rs.12,30,600/-, disallowance of telephone expenses and repairs of Rs.56,595/- and Rs.2,04,493/- and allowance of depreciation on civil maintenance works capitalized at Rs.6,20,449/- were also considered in the said order and net loss

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. MAN TRUCKS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 547/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Pankil SanghviFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act. The other additions on account of amortization of lease charges of Rs.12,30,600/-, disallowance of telephone expenses and repairs of Rs.56,595/- and Rs.2,04,493/- and allowance of depreciation on civil maintenance works capitalized at Rs.6,20,449/- were also considered in the said order and net loss

M/S. KOLTE-PATIL INTEGRATED TOWNSHIPS LIMITED,PUNE vs. PCIT - 4, PUNE

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

ITA 1030/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 3Section 41Section 41(1)

depreciation was claimed in excess was not undertaken by the Commissioner, order of the Commissioner was not sustainable. 14. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vikas Polymers reported in (2010) 194 Taxman 57 (Del), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that

SONAL SANDEEP SATAV,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE-2, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 945/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Sarang GudhateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

depreciation on UPS. Finally, paragraph 7 deals with computation on the basis of the opinion in paragraphs 4.5 and 6. Thus, on the issue of deduction under section 100 of the IT Act, there is absolutely no consideration and yet, the AO has allowed such deduction. This is, according to us, is a case of ho consideration' as opposed

ISHWARLAL S. LALWANI (JAIN) vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 667/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Sunil PathakFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal &
Section 2(24)(iv)

section 2(24)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) in the hands of both assessees. Apart from above, Assessing Officer held that expenditure in respect of above said flats in the nature of Electricity and Telephone expenses paid by the company also constitute perquisite in the hands of both assessees. The Assessing Officer

ISHWARLAL S. LALWANI (JAIN) vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 666/PUN/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Sunil PathakFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal &
Section 2(24)(iv)

section 2(24)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) in the hands of both assessees. Apart from above, Assessing Officer held that expenditure in respect of above said flats in the nature of Electricity and Telephone expenses paid by the company also constitute perquisite in the hands of both assessees. The Assessing Officer

MANISH I. JAIN vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 999/PUN/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Sunil PathakFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal &
Section 2(24)(iv)

section 2(24)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) in the hands of both assessees. Apart from above, Assessing Officer held that expenditure in respect of above said flats in the nature of Electricity and Telephone expenses paid by the company also constitute perquisite in the hands of both assessees. The Assessing Officer