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.

15 results for “depreciation”+ Section 256(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai390Delhi296Bangalore109Chennai61Kolkata59Ahmedabad49Jaipur41Lucknow23Visakhapatnam20Raipur20Hyderabad17Pune15SC11Chandigarh9Cochin8Rajkot6Guwahati5Surat4Telangana4Amritsar4Nagpur3Indore3Agra2Karnataka2Calcutta1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Depreciation12Disallowance12Deduction11Section 110Section 12A6Section 143(3)5Section 40A(3)5Section 114Section 684Section 148

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE -5, PUNE vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA PVT LTD.,, PUNE

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

ITA 323/PUN/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Sept 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Chadraker
Section 10ASection 14ASection 35Section 35(1)

256(1) and (2) of the Act, the attempt failed. There was no further challenge to the settled consistent judicial view taken on the issue. It was also pointed out that the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Ram Babu's case [1996] 222 ITR 606, had been challenged by the Revenue before this court, but the special leave

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

4
Addition to Income4
Section 103
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

ITO, WARD-1(1), SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR vs. MS. KSHIRSAGAR FABRICS, SOLAPUR

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

ITA 97/PUN/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

1. CIT vs. P.V.S. Beedies (P.) Ltd. (1999) 237 ITR 13 (SC) 2. New Light Trading Company vs. CIT (2002) 256 ITR 391 (Del) 3. M/s. Vaishali Builders & Colonizers vs. Addl.CIT vide ITA No.391/Jodh/2011, order dated 25.07.2012 11. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee on the other hand heavily relied on the order of CIT(A) / NFAC in quashing

KAPIL ALCOTECH LLP,AURANGABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 1, AURANGABAD

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

ITA 557/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri K P DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(1)Section 68Section 69C

256 1,31,730.00 61,300.00 70,430.00 01/04/2019 Good Drop Wine Cellers Pvt Ltd Journal 253 90,606.00 90,606.00 01/04/2019 FARTELLI WINES PVT LTD Journal 127 86,753.00 86,753.00 01/04/2019 United Breweries Limited Journal 120 - 3,12,889.40 (3,12,889.40) Round Off (6.60) Grand Total 21. Although the assessee had given detailed submission before

COCA COLA INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

ITA 144/PUN/2007[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote: (Assessment Year: 2000-01) : (Assessment Year: 2001-02) : (Assessment Year: 2002-03) : (Assessment Year: 2003-04) : (Assessment Year: 2004-05) M/S. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle - 1(1) 1107-1110, Pirangut Vs. Pune Tal Mulshi, Pune Pan: Aaacb8573G Appellant Respondent : (Assessment Year: 2000-01) : (Assessment Year: 2001-02) : (Assessment Year: 2002-03) : (Assessment Year: 2003-04) : (Assessment Year: 2004-05) Dcit, Circle - 1(1) M/S. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. Pmt Building 1107-1110, Pirangut Vs. Shankar Seth Road Tal Mulshi, Pune Swargate, Pune 411037 Pan: Aaacb8573G Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri R. Murlidhar Revenue By: Shri Sardar Singh Meena Date Of Hearing: 26.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2022

For Appellant: Shri R. MurlidharFor Respondent: (Assessment Year: 2000-01)
Section 1

Section 32. 19.7. The A O has claimed that since the Appellants are no longer engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of beverage, deprecation cannot be claimed on these assets. 19.8. The AO has failed to appreciate that the business of the appellants is inextricably linked to the demand for bottled beverage. The appellants participate in the activity

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. COCA-COLA INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

ITA 1015/PUN/2004[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2022AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote: (Assessment Year: 2000-01) : (Assessment Year: 2001-02) : (Assessment Year: 2002-03) : (Assessment Year: 2003-04) : (Assessment Year: 2004-05) M/S. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle - 1(1) 1107-1110, Pirangut Vs. Pune Tal Mulshi, Pune Pan: Aaacb8573G Appellant Respondent : (Assessment Year: 2000-01) : (Assessment Year: 2001-02) : (Assessment Year: 2002-03) : (Assessment Year: 2003-04) : (Assessment Year: 2004-05) Dcit, Circle - 1(1) M/S. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. Pmt Building 1107-1110, Pirangut Vs. Shankar Seth Road Tal Mulshi, Pune Swargate, Pune 411037 Pan: Aaacb8573G Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri R. Murlidhar Revenue By: Shri Sardar Singh Meena Date Of Hearing: 26.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2022

For Appellant: Shri R. MurlidharFor Respondent: (Assessment Year: 2000-01)
Section 1

Section 32. 19.7. The A O has claimed that since the Appellants are no longer engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of beverage, deprecation cannot be claimed on these assets. 19.8. The AO has failed to appreciate that the business of the appellants is inextricably linked to the demand for bottled beverage. The appellants participate in the activity

COCA COLA INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

ITA 610/PUN/2004[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2022AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote: (Assessment Year: 2000-01) : (Assessment Year: 2001-02) : (Assessment Year: 2002-03) : (Assessment Year: 2003-04) : (Assessment Year: 2004-05) M/S. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle - 1(1) 1107-1110, Pirangut Vs. Pune Tal Mulshi, Pune Pan: Aaacb8573G Appellant Respondent : (Assessment Year: 2000-01) : (Assessment Year: 2001-02) : (Assessment Year: 2002-03) : (Assessment Year: 2003-04) : (Assessment Year: 2004-05) Dcit, Circle - 1(1) M/S. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. Pmt Building 1107-1110, Pirangut Vs. Shankar Seth Road Tal Mulshi, Pune Swargate, Pune 411037 Pan: Aaacb8573G Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri R. Murlidhar Revenue By: Shri Sardar Singh Meena Date Of Hearing: 26.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2022

For Appellant: Shri R. MurlidharFor Respondent: (Assessment Year: 2000-01)
Section 1

Section 32. 19.7. The A O has claimed that since the Appellants are no longer engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of beverage, deprecation cannot be claimed on these assets. 19.8. The AO has failed to appreciate that the business of the appellants is inextricably linked to the demand for bottled beverage. The appellants participate in the activity

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE vs. COCA COLA INDIA PVT.LTD,, PUNE

ITA 1162/PUN/2005[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote: (Assessment Year: 2000-01) : (Assessment Year: 2001-02) : (Assessment Year: 2002-03) : (Assessment Year: 2003-04) : (Assessment Year: 2004-05) M/S. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle - 1(1) 1107-1110, Pirangut Vs. Pune Tal Mulshi, Pune Pan: Aaacb8573G Appellant Respondent : (Assessment Year: 2000-01) : (Assessment Year: 2001-02) : (Assessment Year: 2002-03) : (Assessment Year: 2003-04) : (Assessment Year: 2004-05) Dcit, Circle - 1(1) M/S. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. Pmt Building 1107-1110, Pirangut Vs. Shankar Seth Road Tal Mulshi, Pune Swargate, Pune 411037 Pan: Aaacb8573G Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri R. Murlidhar Revenue By: Shri Sardar Singh Meena Date Of Hearing: 26.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2022

For Appellant: Shri R. MurlidharFor Respondent: (Assessment Year: 2000-01)
Section 1

Section 32. 19.7. The A O has claimed that since the Appellants are no longer engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of beverage, deprecation cannot be claimed on these assets. 19.8. The AO has failed to appreciate that the business of the appellants is inextricably linked to the demand for bottled beverage. The appellants participate in the activity

COCA COLA INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

ITA 256/PUN/2007[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote: (Assessment Year: 2000-01) : (Assessment Year: 2001-02) : (Assessment Year: 2002-03) : (Assessment Year: 2003-04) : (Assessment Year: 2004-05) M/S. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle - 1(1) 1107-1110, Pirangut Vs. Pune Tal Mulshi, Pune Pan: Aaacb8573G Appellant Respondent : (Assessment Year: 2000-01) : (Assessment Year: 2001-02) : (Assessment Year: 2002-03) : (Assessment Year: 2003-04) : (Assessment Year: 2004-05) Dcit, Circle - 1(1) M/S. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. Pmt Building 1107-1110, Pirangut Vs. Shankar Seth Road Tal Mulshi, Pune Swargate, Pune 411037 Pan: Aaacb8573G Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri R. Murlidhar Revenue By: Shri Sardar Singh Meena Date Of Hearing: 26.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2022

For Appellant: Shri R. MurlidharFor Respondent: (Assessment Year: 2000-01)
Section 1

Section 32. 19.7. The A O has claimed that since the Appellants are no longer engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of beverage, deprecation cannot be claimed on these assets. 19.8. The AO has failed to appreciate that the business of the appellants is inextricably linked to the demand for bottled beverage. The appellants participate in the activity

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. COCA-COLA INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

ITA 357/PUN/2007[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote: (Assessment Year: 2000-01) : (Assessment Year: 2001-02) : (Assessment Year: 2002-03) : (Assessment Year: 2003-04) : (Assessment Year: 2004-05) M/S. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle - 1(1) 1107-1110, Pirangut Vs. Pune Tal Mulshi, Pune Pan: Aaacb8573G Appellant Respondent : (Assessment Year: 2000-01) : (Assessment Year: 2001-02) : (Assessment Year: 2002-03) : (Assessment Year: 2003-04) : (Assessment Year: 2004-05) Dcit, Circle - 1(1) M/S. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. Pmt Building 1107-1110, Pirangut Vs. Shankar Seth Road Tal Mulshi, Pune Swargate, Pune 411037 Pan: Aaacb8573G Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri R. Murlidhar Revenue By: Shri Sardar Singh Meena Date Of Hearing: 26.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2022

For Appellant: Shri R. MurlidharFor Respondent: (Assessment Year: 2000-01)
Section 1

Section 32. 19.7. The A O has claimed that since the Appellants are no longer engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of beverage, deprecation cannot be claimed on these assets. 19.8. The AO has failed to appreciate that the business of the appellants is inextricably linked to the demand for bottled beverage. The appellants participate in the activity

ADDL.CIT RANGE-1, PUNE, PUNE vs. COCA COLA INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

ITA 825/PUN/2008[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote: (Assessment Year: 2000-01) : (Assessment Year: 2001-02) : (Assessment Year: 2002-03) : (Assessment Year: 2003-04) : (Assessment Year: 2004-05) M/S. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle - 1(1) 1107-1110, Pirangut Vs. Pune Tal Mulshi, Pune Pan: Aaacb8573G Appellant Respondent : (Assessment Year: 2000-01) : (Assessment Year: 2001-02) : (Assessment Year: 2002-03) : (Assessment Year: 2003-04) : (Assessment Year: 2004-05) Dcit, Circle - 1(1) M/S. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. Pmt Building 1107-1110, Pirangut Vs. Shankar Seth Road Tal Mulshi, Pune Swargate, Pune 411037 Pan: Aaacb8573G Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri R. Murlidhar Revenue By: Shri Sardar Singh Meena Date Of Hearing: 26.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2022

For Appellant: Shri R. MurlidharFor Respondent: (Assessment Year: 2000-01)
Section 1

Section 32. 19.7. The A O has claimed that since the Appellants are no longer engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of beverage, deprecation cannot be claimed on these assets. 19.8. The AO has failed to appreciate that the business of the appellants is inextricably linked to the demand for bottled beverage. The appellants participate in the activity

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. COCA-COLA INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

ITA 356/PUN/2007[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote: (Assessment Year: 2000-01) : (Assessment Year: 2001-02) : (Assessment Year: 2002-03) : (Assessment Year: 2003-04) : (Assessment Year: 2004-05) M/S. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle - 1(1) 1107-1110, Pirangut Vs. Pune Tal Mulshi, Pune Pan: Aaacb8573G Appellant Respondent : (Assessment Year: 2000-01) : (Assessment Year: 2001-02) : (Assessment Year: 2002-03) : (Assessment Year: 2003-04) : (Assessment Year: 2004-05) Dcit, Circle - 1(1) M/S. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. Pmt Building 1107-1110, Pirangut Vs. Shankar Seth Road Tal Mulshi, Pune Swargate, Pune 411037 Pan: Aaacb8573G Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri R. Murlidhar Revenue By: Shri Sardar Singh Meena Date Of Hearing: 26.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2022

For Appellant: Shri R. MurlidharFor Respondent: (Assessment Year: 2000-01)
Section 1

Section 32. 19.7. The A O has claimed that since the Appellants are no longer engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of beverage, deprecation cannot be claimed on these assets. 19.8. The AO has failed to appreciate that the business of the appellants is inextricably linked to the demand for bottled beverage. The appellants participate in the activity

COCA COLA INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

ITA 896/PUN/2008[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote: (Assessment Year: 2000-01) : (Assessment Year: 2001-02) : (Assessment Year: 2002-03) : (Assessment Year: 2003-04) : (Assessment Year: 2004-05) M/S. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle - 1(1) 1107-1110, Pirangut Vs. Pune Tal Mulshi, Pune Pan: Aaacb8573G Appellant Respondent : (Assessment Year: 2000-01) : (Assessment Year: 2001-02) : (Assessment Year: 2002-03) : (Assessment Year: 2003-04) : (Assessment Year: 2004-05) Dcit, Circle - 1(1) M/S. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. Pmt Building 1107-1110, Pirangut Vs. Shankar Seth Road Tal Mulshi, Pune Swargate, Pune 411037 Pan: Aaacb8573G Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri R. Murlidhar Revenue By: Shri Sardar Singh Meena Date Of Hearing: 26.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2022

For Appellant: Shri R. MurlidharFor Respondent: (Assessment Year: 2000-01)
Section 1

Section 32. 19.7. The A O has claimed that since the Appellants are no longer engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of beverage, deprecation cannot be claimed on these assets. 19.8. The AO has failed to appreciate that the business of the appellants is inextricably linked to the demand for bottled beverage. The appellants participate in the activity

COCA COLA INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

ITA 1103/PUN/2005[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote: (Assessment Year: 2000-01) : (Assessment Year: 2001-02) : (Assessment Year: 2002-03) : (Assessment Year: 2003-04) : (Assessment Year: 2004-05) M/S. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle - 1(1) 1107-1110, Pirangut Vs. Pune Tal Mulshi, Pune Pan: Aaacb8573G Appellant Respondent : (Assessment Year: 2000-01) : (Assessment Year: 2001-02) : (Assessment Year: 2002-03) : (Assessment Year: 2003-04) : (Assessment Year: 2004-05) Dcit, Circle - 1(1) M/S. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. Pmt Building 1107-1110, Pirangut Vs. Shankar Seth Road Tal Mulshi, Pune Swargate, Pune 411037 Pan: Aaacb8573G Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri R. Murlidhar Revenue By: Shri Sardar Singh Meena Date Of Hearing: 26.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2022

For Appellant: Shri R. MurlidharFor Respondent: (Assessment Year: 2000-01)
Section 1

Section 32. 19.7. The A O has claimed that since the Appellants are no longer engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of beverage, deprecation cannot be claimed on these assets. 19.8. The AO has failed to appreciate that the business of the appellants is inextricably linked to the demand for bottled beverage. The appellants participate in the activity

ASHWINI SAHAKARI RUNGNALAYA & RESEARCH CENTER,,SOLAPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (EXEMPTIONS),, PUNE

ITA 714/PUN/2018[N.A]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Mar 2024

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 714/Pun/2018 Ashwini Sahakari Rugnalaya & Research Centre 7107/1, Plot No. 180, North Sadar Bazar, Solapur-413003. Pan: Aaaja0041K . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Shingte [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Keyur Patel [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 10Section 10(23)Section 11Section 12ASection 22Section 253(1)(c)

depreciation thereon. So, the extraneous profits generated from commercial operations were swept out by claiming double deduction so as to portrait that it is a charitable institution made meagre incidental profits. 8.6 Adverting to internal resolution placed at Pg230-to250/PB-1, for instance the Ld. Mr Patel submitted that, the Ld. AR’s contention that pursuant Hon’ble Supreme Court