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.

54 results for “depreciation”+ Section 198clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai365Delhi306Bangalore132Ahmedabad109Chennai79Jaipur62Kolkata60Chandigarh58Pune54Hyderabad37Lucknow21Karnataka15Raipur14Visakhapatnam12Surat12Indore11Guwahati5SC5Amritsar5Cochin4Jodhpur4Rajasthan3Nagpur3Rajkot3Ranchi3Cuttack2Telangana2Dehradun1Patna1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)53Section 80I49Section 12A43Section 153A41Section 1138Addition to Income36Section 14732Section 14A31Depreciation26Section 10(20)

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE ,, PUNE vs. SHIVNAGAR VIDYA PRASARAK MANDAL,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2548/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Mar 2021AY 2010-11
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)

Section 11,12, 12A, 12AA & 13 and these provisions are independent code in itself in Chapter III of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and claim of depreciation u/s 32 comes under Chapter IV of the Act under the head ‘D’ - Profit and Gains of Business or Profession and depreciation is allowed when capital assets are used for the purpose

Showing 1–20 of 54 · Page 1 of 3

24
Deduction22
Disallowance17

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,(EXEMPTION) CIRCLE ,, PUNE vs. THE BISHOPS EDUCATION SOCIETY,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2551/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Mar 2021AY 2008-09
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)

Section 11,12, 12A, 12AA & 13 and these provisions are independent code in itself in Chapter III of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and claim of depreciation u/s 32 comes under Chapter IV of the Act under the head ‘D’ - Profit and Gains of Business or Profession and depreciation is allowed when capital assets are used for the purpose

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. MAHATMA GANDHI MISSION,, AURANGABAD

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1633/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1633 & 1634/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 The Income Tax Officer, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Ward 1(1), Aurangabad …. Vs. Mahatma Gandhi Mission, Mgm Campus, N-6, Cidco, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Aurangabad Pan: Aaatm4256E अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Rajeev Kumar, Cit प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Pramod Shingte

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Shingte
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 35

depreciation on capital assets at ₹ 15,42,83,198/- in assessment year 2010-11. The Assessing Officer also noted that the cost of assets had already been allowed as application of income under section

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. MAHATMA GANDHI MISSION,, AURANGABAD

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1634/PUN/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1633 & 1634/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 The Income Tax Officer, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Ward 1(1), Aurangabad …. Vs. Mahatma Gandhi Mission, Mgm Campus, N-6, Cidco, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Aurangabad Pan: Aaatm4256E अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Rajeev Kumar, Cit प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Pramod Shingte

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Shingte
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 35

depreciation on capital assets at ₹ 15,42,83,198/- in assessment year 2010-11. The Assessing Officer also noted that the cost of assets had already been allowed as application of income under section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, JALGAON vs. SHRI MAHENDRA MURLIDHAR PATIL,, JALGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 587/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha
Section 133ASection 145(3)

depreciation is more than 8%, no separate. trading addition is required to be made. Therefore, estimated addition sustained at Rs.1,45,64,777/- (2,96,75,198(-)1,51,10,421) by CIT(A) may please be deleted. [4] The Appellate craves the permission to add, amend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, delete any or all grounds of the appeal

A.C.I.T ,WARDHA CIRCLE , WARDHA , WARDHA vs. M/S KAPIL SOLVEX PVT .LTD , YAVATMAL

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

ITA 221/NAG/2017[2009-20010]Status: Trans-OutITAT Pune26 Sept 2024

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

198 & 288 ITR (AT) 207). The decision of Honourable Supreme Court in the case of G K N Driveshafts was also discussed elaborately therein. The observations of Honourable ITAT are reproduced as under: "To repeatedly insist that the AO should formally communicate the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, even all the while being aware of such reasons, is nothing

HOTEL AYODHYA,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 150/PUN/2025[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2025

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 32(2)Section 72Section 72(1)Section 73

198-E, Tararani Chowk, Kawala Naka, Tararani Chowk, Kolhapur- 416003. PAN : AAAFH5549M Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue by : Shri Manoj Tripathi Date of hearing : 19.03.2025 Date of pronouncement : 27.03.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER MANISH BORAD, AM: This appeal filed at the instance of assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-3, Hyderabad

SHANKAR NAGAPPA JADAGOUDA,KOLHAPUR vs. NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 381/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta
Section 147Section 148

depreciation. This question was answered in the negative. A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court held in Travancore Cements Ltd. v. CIT [2008] 305 ITR 1701 , that upon the issuance of a notice under section 148(2), when proceedings were initiated by the Assessing Officer on issues in respect of which he had formed a reason to believe that

SHRI SHANTINATH BHAGWAN JAIN SHWETAMBAR MURTIPUJAK SANGH,PUNE vs. CIT, EXEMPTION,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed

ITA 203/PUN/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri V.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena
Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 263

depreciation. This question was answered in the negative. A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court held in Travancore Cements Ltd. v. CIT [2008] 305 ITR 1701 , that upon the issuance of a notice under section 148(2), when proceedings were initiated by the Assessing Officer on issues in respect of which he had formed a reason to believe that

M/S. SHI vs. HAKTI SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED,,OSMANABADVS.DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 3,, NANDED

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1166/PUN/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Shivshakti Shetkari Vs. Dcit, Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Circle-3, Limited, Nanded Washi Dist., Osmanabad. Pan : Aacts1082Q Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

depreciation. This question was answered in the negative. A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court held in Travancore Cements Ltd. v. CIT [2008] 305 ITR 1701 , that upon the issuance of a notice under section 148(2), when proceedings were initiated by the Assessing Officer on issues in respect of which he had formed a reason to believe that

M/S. RAJLAXMI PETROCHEM PVT.LTD,,LATUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, , NASHIK

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 210/PUN/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Hariom TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena &
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

depreciation. This question was answered in the negative. A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court held in Travancore Cements Ltd. v. CIT [2008] 305 ITR 1701 , that upon the issuance of a notice under section 148(2), when proceedings were initiated by the Assessing Officer on issues in respect of which he had formed a reason to believe that

M/S. RAJLAXMI PETROCHEM PVT.LTD,,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, LATUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 1693/PUN/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Hariom TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena &
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

depreciation. This question was answered in the negative. A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court held in Travancore Cements Ltd. v. CIT [2008] 305 ITR 1701 , that upon the issuance of a notice under section 148(2), when proceedings were initiated by the Assessing Officer on issues in respect of which he had formed a reason to believe that

M/S. RAJLAXMI PETROCHEM PVT.LTD,,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, LATUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 1694/PUN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Hariom TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena &
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

depreciation. This question was answered in the negative. A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court held in Travancore Cements Ltd. v. CIT [2008] 305 ITR 1701 , that upon the issuance of a notice under section 148(2), when proceedings were initiated by the Assessing Officer on issues in respect of which he had formed a reason to believe that

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

section 115JA of the Act. Accordingly, Ground No.11 by the assessee is allowed. 17. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 34 Serum Institute of India Ltd., A.Yrs. 2011-12 and 2012-13 ITA No.550/PUN/2016 – By Assessee A.Y. 2012-13 18. Grounds raised by the Assessee read as under : “On the facts

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

section 115JA of the Act. Accordingly, Ground No.11 by the assessee is allowed. 17. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 34 Serum Institute of India Ltd., A.Yrs. 2011-12 and 2012-13 ITA No.550/PUN/2016 – By Assessee A.Y. 2012-13 18. Grounds raised by the Assessee read as under : “On the facts

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

section 115JA of the Act. Accordingly, Ground No.11 by the assessee is allowed. 17. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 34 Serum Institute of India Ltd., A.Yrs. 2011-12 and 2012-13 ITA No.550/PUN/2016 – By Assessee A.Y. 2012-13 18. Grounds raised by the Assessee read as under : “On the facts

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

section 115JA of the Act. Accordingly, Ground No.11 by the assessee is allowed. 17. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 34 Serum Institute of India Ltd., A.Yrs. 2011-12 and 2012-13 ITA No.550/PUN/2016 – By Assessee A.Y. 2012-13 18. Grounds raised by the Assessee read as under : “On the facts

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

198 to 204 Q. No. 12/201 & Kokani recorded in the course of 202 search action u/s 132(4) on 08.09.2015 2 Statement of Mr. Fakruddin 205 to 207 Q. No. 4 to 8 Kokani recorded issued u/s. 131 /205 & 206 of the IT Act, 1961 on 23.10.2015 3 Statement of Shri. Shashikant 208 to 211 Q. No. 9 to Shivchand

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE vs. ATLAS COPCO (INDIA) LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that

ITA 302/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.302/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Dcit, Circle-8, Atlas Copco (India) Limited, Pune Vs. Mumbai-Pune Road, Dapodi, Pune – 411 012 Pan : Aaaca4074D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 92C

198 incurred during the year were held to be capital in nature, the Appellant prays for allowance of the consequential depreciation on the same, in the subsequent years, including AY 2012-13.” 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Thermal Power Company Ltd. Vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) has observed that “the purpose of the assessment proceedings

ATLAS COPCO (INDIA) LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that

ITA 345/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.302/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Dcit, Circle-8, Atlas Copco (India) Limited, Pune Vs. Mumbai-Pune Road, Dapodi, Pune – 411 012 Pan : Aaaca4074D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 92C

198 incurred during the year were held to be capital in nature, the Appellant prays for allowance of the consequential depreciation on the same, in the subsequent years, including AY 2012-13.” 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Thermal Power Company Ltd. Vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) has observed that “the purpose of the assessment proceedings