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.

9 results for “depreciation”+ Section 32Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai119Delhi70Bangalore23Kolkata19Hyderabad19Indore17Ahmedabad12SC9Pune9Karnataka9Chennai4Visakhapatnam3Jaipur3Chandigarh2Cochin2Calcutta2Rajkot1Cuttack1Telangana1Guwahati1

Key Topics

Section 32(1)(iia)12Section 80H9Section 2638Disallowance5Section 80P(2)(a)4Section 80A4Deduction4Addition to Income4Section 80P3Section 147

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)
3
Depreciation3
Section 40A(3)2
Section 80P(2)(c)
Section 80P(2)(d)

depreciation and investment allowance as referred to in sections 32 and 32A respectively, the Commissioner was justified in invoking revision

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

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 11/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

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

Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80H

section 32A was allowed. It goes without saying that if a person, instead of manufacturing for himself, manufactures the eligible articles for some outsider on job work basis, the benefit available for own manufacturing cannot be denied to the manufacturing on job work basis. We are confronted with a situation in which the assessee is neither involved

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

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1608/PUN/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

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

Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80H

section 32A was allowed. It goes without saying that if a person, instead of manufacturing for himself, manufactures the eligible articles for some outsider on job work basis, the benefit available for own manufacturing cannot be denied to the manufacturing on job work basis. We are confronted with a situation in which the assessee is neither involved

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

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1723/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

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

Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80H

section 32A was allowed. It goes without saying that if a person, instead of manufacturing for himself, manufactures the eligible articles for some outsider on job work basis, the benefit available for own manufacturing cannot be denied to the manufacturing on job work basis. We are confronted with a situation in which the assessee is neither involved

SACHIN RAMDAS MOHITE,,SATARA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-3,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 395/PUN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri G.D. Padmahshali, Am

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena
Section 263Section 37Section 40A(3)Section 69A

depreciation and investment allowance as referred to in sections 32 and 32A respectively, Commissioner was justified in invoking revision u/s 263. 4.5. Similarly

BANK OF MAHARASHTRA,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 635/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan with Mrs. Lalitha RFor Respondent: Mrs. Kesang Y. Sherpa

32A of the Act at p. 896 held that section prescribes no point of time by which the reserve should be created and in this regard accepted that a reserve created after the closure of the accounts of the year qualifies by observing as under : "The second question which is raised only

BANK OF MAHARASHTRA,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 634/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan with Mrs. Lalitha RFor Respondent: Mrs. Kesang Y. Sherpa

32A of the Act at p. 896 held that section prescribes no point of time by which the reserve should be created and in this regard accepted that a reserve created after the closure of the accounts of the year qualifies by observing as under : "The second question which is raised only

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE vs. BANK OF MAHARASHTRA,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 579/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan with Mrs. Lalitha RFor Respondent: Mrs. Kesang Y. Sherpa

32A of the Act at p. 896 held that section prescribes no point of time by which the reserve should be created and in this regard accepted that a reserve created after the closure of the accounts of the year qualifies by observing as under : "The second question which is raised only

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE vs. BANK OF MAHARASHTRA,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 581/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan with Mrs. Lalitha RFor Respondent: Mrs. Kesang Y. Sherpa

32A of the Act at p. 896 held that section prescribes no point of time by which the reserve should be created and in this regard accepted that a reserve created after the closure of the accounts of the year qualifies by observing as under : "The second question which is raised only