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.

401 results for “depreciation”+ Section 25clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,268Delhi2,975Bangalore1,212Chennai1,056Ahmedabad791Kolkata640Pune401Jaipur369Hyderabad362Chandigarh264Raipur166Indore150Surat137Cochin127Visakhapatnam126Amritsar116Karnataka113Cuttack110Lucknow66Rajkot63Ranchi52SC49Nagpur47Guwahati43Jodhpur34Telangana33Agra22Dehradun20Kerala18Allahabad16Patna13Panaji10Calcutta9Varanasi6Rajasthan5Punjab & Haryana4Jabalpur3Gauhati1Tripura1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Orissa1D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)66Addition to Income62Disallowance55Section 14842Depreciation42Section 14A38Deduction34Section 3532Section 143(1)30Section 143(2)

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)

25. In our opinion, the assessee cannot be denied exemption under section 54E, because, firstly, there is nothing in section 50 to suggest that the fiction created in section 50 is not only restricted to sections 48 and 49 but also applies to other provisions. On the contrary, section 50 makes it explicitly clear that the deemed fiction created

Showing 1–20 of 401 · Page 1 of 21

...
28
Section 12A25
Section 148A20

M/S. ROHAN & RAJDEEP INFRASTRUCTURE,,PUNE vs. PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 633/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 80I

25% was rightly claimed on the asset 'right to collect toll' which was owned by the assessee as it has constructed the highways / roads. e. In view of various decisions of ITAT, the above claim of depreciation was clearly allowable to the assessee and hence, there was no error in the order. f. In the past asst. years also

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

depreciation @ 25% amounting to Rs.1,38,62,500/- Sr No Description of asset Amt. (Rs.) 1 Non compete fees 1,42,00,000 2 Distribution Network rights 4,17,00,000 3 Customer list 4,17,00,000 4. The learned CIT(A)-1, Pune & the learned AO failed to appreciate that the appellant has duly discharged the consideration

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

depreciation @ 25% amounting to Rs.1,38,62,500/- Sr No Description of asset Amt. (Rs.) 1 Non compete fees 1,42,00,000 2 Distribution Network rights 4,17,00,000 3 Customer list 4,17,00,000 4. The learned CIT(A)-1, Pune & the learned AO failed to appreciate that the appellant has duly discharged the consideration

AMPHENOL INTERCONNECT INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2300/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2300/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak & Mahavir JainFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Gautam, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 92C

25% is no more and now additional depreciation is to be allowed on additional investments and where the plant includes tools, the assessee is entitled to the claim of additional depreciation under section

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. ASHOKA INFRAWAYS PVT. LTD.,, NASHIK

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross-

ITA 60/PUN/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2018AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 260ASection 32(1)(ii)

25% on ‘Licence to collect toll’. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding that assessee was eligible to claim depreciation on ‘Licence to collect toll’ considering it as an intangible asset in terms of section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. ASHOKA INFRAWAYS PVT. LTD.,, NASHIK

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross-

ITA 63/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 260ASection 32(1)(ii)

25% on ‘Licence to collect toll’. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding that assessee was eligible to claim depreciation on ‘Licence to collect toll’ considering it as an intangible asset in terms of section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. ASHOKA INFRAWAYS PVT. LTD.,, NASHIK

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross-

ITA 62/PUN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 260ASection 32(1)(ii)

25% on ‘Licence to collect toll’. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding that assessee was eligible to claim depreciation on ‘Licence to collect toll’ considering it as an intangible asset in terms of section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. ASHOKA INFRAWAYS PVT. LTD.,, NASHIK

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross-

ITA 61/PUN/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2018AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 260ASection 32(1)(ii)

25% on ‘Licence to collect toll’. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding that assessee was eligible to claim depreciation on ‘Licence to collect toll’ considering it as an intangible asset in terms of section

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

depreciation etc." No question of law, therefore, arises in this respect. 12. Question No.3 itself records that the issue at hand is covered by the decision of this Court in case of HDFC v/s. DCIT reported in 366 ITR 505 but that, the department has not accepted the decision of the High Court. In that view, this question also

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 156/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

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

depreciation etc." No question of law, therefore, arises in this respect. 12. Question No.3 itself records that the issue at hand is covered by the decision of this Court in case of HDFC v/s. DCIT reported in 366 ITR 505 but that, the department has not accepted the decision of the High Court. In that view, this question also

ACIT, CIRCLE-5, PUNE, PUNE vs. SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

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

ITA 1844/PUN/2024[2019]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

depreciation etc." No question of law, therefore, arises in this respect. 12. Question No.3 itself records that the issue at hand is covered by the decision of this Court in case of HDFC v/s. DCIT reported in 366 ITR 505 but that, the department has not accepted the decision of the High Court. In that view, this question also

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

depreciation etc." No question of law, therefore, arises in this respect. 12. Question No.3 itself records that the issue at hand is covered by the decision of this Court in case of HDFC v/s. DCIT reported in 366 ITR 505 but that, the department has not accepted the decision of the High Court. In that view, this question also

SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 1423/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

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

depreciation etc." No question of law, therefore, arises in this respect. 12. Question No.3 itself records that the issue at hand is covered by the decision of this Court in case of HDFC v/s. DCIT reported in 366 ITR 505 but that, the department has not accepted the decision of the High Court. In that view, this question also

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED, (EARLIER KNOWN AS IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD),,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2395/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Anurag Srivastava
Section 10A

depreciation @ 25% on written down value of the goodwill at Rs.14,112,506/-. Thus, ground No. 5 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 21. Ground No. 6 raised by the assessee challenging the action of CIT(A) in confirming the denial of carry forward of long term capital loss in the facts and circumstances of the case

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE vs. IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2624/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Anurag Srivastava
Section 10A

depreciation @ 25% on written down value of the goodwill at Rs.14,112,506/-. Thus, ground No. 5 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 21. Ground No. 6 raised by the assessee challenging the action of CIT(A) in confirming the denial of carry forward of long term capital loss in the facts and circumstances of the case

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(3),, SOLAPUR vs. SHRI. ULHAS MALLIKARJUN PATIL,, SOLAPUR

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

ITA 1751/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1751/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, Shri Ulhas Mallikarjun Patil, Ward-2(3), Solapur, Vs Block No.3, Sunandan . Complex, Near Dayanand College, Ravivar Peth, Solapur – 413004. Pan: Akepp 1943 P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Krishna V Gujarathi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 05/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 06/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-7, Pune’S Order Dated 31.08.2018 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-7/Wd- 2(3)/10434/2016-147, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 50

section 50 & 50C. The AO observed that the school building was constructed keeping in view needs of school and intention of building was on commercial basis. The AO also observed that assessee has shown business income from A.Y.2008-09 onwards. The assessee has not claimed any depreciation on school building. The AO has mentioned that capitalization of interest till completion

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. ASHOKA DSC KATNI BY-PASS ROAD PVT. LTD.,, NASHIK

In the result, the revenue‟s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1637/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 32(1)(ii)

25% of Rs.6,53,90,973/- as claimed by the assessee on “License to collect toll”. 2) On the facts & circumstances of the case and in law whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding that assessee was eligible to claim depreciation on „License to collect toll‟ considering it as an intangible asset in terms of section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. ASHOKA DSC KATNI BY-PASS ROAD PVT.LTD,, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 212/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.212/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle – 1, Nashik …. Vs. M/S. Ashoka Dsc Katni By-Pass Road Pvt. Ltd., Ashoka Marg, Wadala, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik – 422101 Pan: Aaeca4746J

For Appellant: Shri Prashant GudekarFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

25% on “License to collect Toll”. The Assessing Officer had denied the said depreciation to the assessee. However, the CIT(A) held the assessee to be eligible to claim depreciation considering the same to be an intangible asset in terms of section