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.

19 results for “depreciation”+ Section 224clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi368Mumbai273Bangalore113Raipur82Chennai75Ahmedabad57Kolkata43Jaipur39Cochin37Chandigarh27Surat25Hyderabad25Pune19Cuttack18Lucknow17Guwahati13Amritsar12SC7Nagpur7Ranchi5Visakhapatnam3Indore3Jodhpur2Karnataka2Rajkot2Kerala1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Allahabad1Telangana1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)16Addition to Income13Section 115J11Deduction11Depreciation9Section 143(2)7Disallowance7Transfer Pricing7Section 10A6Section 35

ASHOK NARAYAN BHOSALE,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

ITA 1501/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1501/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ashok Narayan Bhosale, The Deputy Commissioner Of Ashok Narayan Bhosle Bunglow At Vs Income Tax, Kaveri Nagar, Pratham Housing Cirlce-8, Pune. Society, Wakad, Pune – 411057. Pan: Aaspb 3588 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri S.P.Walimbe - Dr Date Of Hearing 10/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 14/03/2022

Section 1Section 10Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 32

section 32 was also not there but right now with the insertion of such proviso, this right has been statutorily recognized. That as regards, whether such proviso would apply to past periods or not, the judgment of the Hon‟ble Madras High Court (supra.) which is still operational and it has been held that the said proviso was only clarificatory

6
Section 43(1)6
Section 325

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLIGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 506/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrasr No 1

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak andFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR and
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 35(1)Section 80I

depreciation in the fight of provisions of section 43(1) [explanation 10]. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC deleted the addition and the Revenue is not in appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, we are not concerned with the same. 45. Further, on perusal of return of income the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had claimed deduction u/s.35

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1660/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrasr No 1

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 35(1)Section 80I

depreciation in the fight of provisions of section 43(1) [explanation 10]. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC deleted the addition and the Revenue is not in appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, we are not concerned with the same. 45. Further, on perusal of return of income the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had claimed deduction u/s.35

M/S. RENISHAW METROLOGY SYSTEMS LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

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

ITA 376/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.376/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Renishaw Metrology Systems Ltd., S.No.283, Hissa No.2, S.No.284, Hissa No.2 & 3A, Raisoni Estate, Village Mann, Taluka Mulshi, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411057 …. Pan: Aabcr6361F Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(2), Pune

For Appellant: S/Shri Arijit Chakravarty and Abhishek TilakFor Respondent: Mrs. Nandita Kanchan
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 92C(2)Section 92C(3)Section 92D

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the premise that the Appellant has concealed/furnished inaccurate particulars of income without appreciating the fact that adjustment made is not in accordance with the law. 4. The assessee has also filed an additional ground of appeal which reads as under:- 5. Minimum Alternate Tax (‘MAT’) Credit Carry Forward to Future Years: Without

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 5,, PUNE vs. RENISHAW METROLOGY SYSTEMS LTD,, PUNE

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

ITA 2975/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.376/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Renishaw Metrology Systems Ltd., S.No.283, Hissa No.2, S.No.284, Hissa No.2 & 3A, Raisoni Estate, Village Mann, Taluka Mulshi, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411057 …. Pan: Aabcr6361F Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(2), Pune

For Appellant: S/Shri Arijit Chakravarty and Abhishek TilakFor Respondent: Mrs. Nandita Kanchan
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 92C(2)Section 92C(3)Section 92D

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the premise that the Appellant has concealed/furnished inaccurate particulars of income without appreciating the fact that adjustment made is not in accordance with the law. 4. The assessee has also filed an additional ground of appeal which reads as under:- 5. Minimum Alternate Tax (‘MAT’) Credit Carry Forward to Future Years: Without

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. KOLHAPUR ZILLA SAHAKARI DUDH UTPADAK SANGH LTD,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2726/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2726 & 2727/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri O.A. MaoFor Respondent: Shri Sushant Phadnis
Section 143(3)Section 43(1)Section 80P

depreciation on fixed assets on project without deducting subsidy received from the National Dairy Development Board, ignoring the provisions of section 43(1) and Explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act? 4) The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 5) The appellant craves leave

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. KOLHAPUR ZILLA SAHAKARI DUDH UTPADAK SANGH LTD,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2727/PUN/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2726 & 2727/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri O.A. MaoFor Respondent: Shri Sushant Phadnis
Section 143(3)Section 43(1)Section 80P

depreciation on fixed assets on project without deducting subsidy received from the National Dairy Development Board, ignoring the provisions of section 43(1) and Explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act? 4) The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 5) The appellant craves leave

DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, SWARGATE vs. ENTRATA INDIA PVT. LTD, PUNE

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

ITA 66/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.133/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. International Tech Park, Block-1, Wing-A, 14Th Floor, Kharadi, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaacw7089A Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.66/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., International Tech Park, Block-1, Wing-A, 14Th Floor, Kharadi, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaacw7089A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing 14.11.2024 : Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 24.11.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-13, Pune [‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.133/Pun/2024 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32

Section 32 in para 6.2.1 of the assessment order extracted above and held the same to be capital expenditure and allowed depreciation at the rate of 10%. He also relied on the Hon'ble apex court's decision on Ballimal Naval Kishore Vs Commissioner of Income Tax [224

ENTRATA INDIA PVT. LTD. ,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 133/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.133/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. International Tech Park, Block-1, Wing-A, 14Th Floor, Kharadi, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaacw7089A Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.66/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., International Tech Park, Block-1, Wing-A, 14Th Floor, Kharadi, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaacw7089A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing 14.11.2024 : Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 24.11.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-13, Pune [‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.133/Pun/2024 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32

Section 32 in para 6.2.1 of the assessment order extracted above and held the same to be capital expenditure and allowed depreciation at the rate of 10%. He also relied on the Hon'ble apex court's decision on Ballimal Naval Kishore Vs Commissioner of Income Tax [224

JAIN IRRIGATION SYSTEMS LTD.,JALGAON vs. DY. CIT, JALGAON

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1070/PUN/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 28Section 36Section 37

depreciation. 5.3 The learned CIT (A) in fact ought to have held that the expenditure in the form of non compete fee was of revenue nature and therefore fully allowable. 5.4 Assuming two view are possible, the learned CIT (A) ought to have followed view favourable to the assessee. 6. Carry forward of losses 6.1 The learned

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE vs. SHARADA ERECTORS PRIVATE LIMITED., PUNE`

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 2040/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2040 & 2041/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

224 ITR 627 (SC) and upheld the proposition that in case both interest-free funds and interest-bearing funds are available discretion lies in the hands of the assessee for utilization of those funds. Thus, the aforesaid plea of the Revenue is untenable. 18. For all the aforesaid reasons, we are inclined to uphold the stand of the assessee. Accordingly

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE vs. SHARADA ERECTORS PRIVATE LIMITED., PUNE`

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 2041/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2040 & 2041/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

224 ITR 627 (SC) and upheld the proposition that in case both interest-free funds and interest-bearing funds are available discretion lies in the hands of the assessee for utilization of those funds. Thus, the aforesaid plea of the Revenue is untenable. 18. For all the aforesaid reasons, we are inclined to uphold the stand of the assessee. Accordingly

MULTICON DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2154/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

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

Section 133A

depreciation and other expenses to the extent of 6 Multicon Developers Pvt. Ltd., 70%, being, relatable to the part not used by the assessee exclusively for its business purposes, cannot be faulted with. We, therefore, approve the view taken by the ld. CIT(A) on this issue. These three grounds are ergo dismissed. 9. The only other ground is against

M/S PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

ITA 692/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.692/Pun/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S.Persistent Systems Assessment Unit, Income Limited, V Tax Department. “Bhageerath” 402, Senapati S Bapat Road, Pune – 411016. Pan: Aabcp 1209 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dhanesh Bafna& Shriaditya Vaidya– Ar’S Revenue By Shri Suhas Kulkarni - Irs Addl Commissioner Of Income Tax Date Of Hearing 26/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02/11/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order, Dated 20.07.2022 Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Ground 1: Order Is Invalid / Non Est  On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Unit (‘Au’) Has Erred In Passing The Draft Assessment M/S.Persistent Systems Limited [A]

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144(11)Section 144(7)Section 144BSection 144C(6)(C)

224 1,487,740,871 2.2A reworked Cost of Technical B 2.3 1,960,871,669 1,960,871,669 professions- Others Provision for B 2.4 -146,424,759 -146,424,759 doubtful debts B 2.5 Bad debts 157,622,688 157,622,688 Depreciation and Amortisation – B 2.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 originally absorbed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. MAHARASHTRA WATER CONSERVATION CORPORATION,, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1689/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1689/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Aurangabad. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Maharashtra Water Conservation Corporation, Fazalpura, Nr. Collector Office, Aurangabad-431 001. Pan : Aamfm1607K ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri O. A MaoFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Shastri
Section 143(3)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short ‘the Act’). 2 A.Y.2012-13 2. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal: “1.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-2, erred in holding that the assessee is engaged in the business activities when there were only meager contract

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

section 40(a)(ii) by insertion of Explanation 3 w.e.f. 01-04-2005, reading as under : “Explanation 3 – For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that for the purposes of this sub-clause, the term ‘tax’’ shall include and shall be deemed to have always included any surcharge or cess, by whatever name called, on such

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

section 40(a)(ii) by insertion of Explanation 3 w.e.f. 01-04-2005, reading as under : “Explanation 3 – For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that for the purposes of this sub-clause, the term ‘tax’’ shall include and shall be deemed to have always included any surcharge or cess, by whatever name called, on such

M/S. OCWEN FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2520/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 2520/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Ocwen Financial Solutions Private Limited. Pritech Park, Block-12, Unit-2, 5B & 6A Floors, Bellandur Village, Sarjapur, Marathahalli Ring Road, Bangalore-560 103. Pan : Aaaco3764E .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11, Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil MuthaFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena
Section 144C(5)Section 92C

224/- TNMM enabled services to AEs. 3 A.Y.2013-14 5.1 The assessee used Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) to benchmark its international transactions with the Profit Level Indicator (PLI) of operating profit/operating cost (OP/OC). The assessee in its transfer pricing study report had determined PLI of the comparable companies using three years weighted average as at 10.45% as against that