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.

217 results for “depreciation”+ Section 41clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,165Delhi1,945Bangalore795Chennai629Ahmedabad529Kolkata404Hyderabad248Jaipur222Pune217Chandigarh191Raipur142Visakhapatnam112Indore104Surat97Amritsar78Cochin75Cuttack70Karnataka61Ranchi51Lucknow49Guwahati42Rajkot40Nagpur39SC32Telangana20Jodhpur18Kerala15Dehradun11Agra11Allahabad10Calcutta5Varanasi4Panaji4Rajasthan3Patna3Jabalpur2Punjab & Haryana1D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1Tripura1Orissa1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)79Section 17172Section 14A59Addition to Income57Section 26340Section 3539Section 12A37Disallowance37Section 10A36Depreciation

POONA BOTTLING COMPNAY PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1484/PUN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1484/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri P.P. BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 143Section 41Section 41(1)

depreciable asset, cannot be termed as ‘Trade Liabilities” within the meaning of sub section (1) of section 41 of the Act. The capital

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -3, NASHIK vs. WINDSOR MACHINES LTD., MUMBAI

Showing 1–20 of 217 · Page 1 of 11

...
31
Section 153A30
Deduction29

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 915/PUN/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari
Section 3Section 32(2)

depreciation for set off in the subsequent years. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court as referred by the CIT(A) in para 5.4 of the impugned order, we do not find any infirmity in the reasons recorded by the CIT(A) and we agree with the same. Thus, the order of CIT(A) is justified

MITHI SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 14(3), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2371/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2371/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mithi Software Technologies V The Income Tax Private Limited, S Officer, 101, Mayfair Court, Nachiket Ward-14(3), Pune. Park, Baner Road, Pune – 411045. Pan: Aabcm9352P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By Shri Ambarnath Khule – Jcit(Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing 24/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Addl./Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Agra Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2014-15 Dated 25.08.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order U/S.143(3) Of

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 41(1)Section 72

Section 41 (1) of the IT Act and held that the Respondent had received amortization benefit. Amortization is an accounting term that refers to the process of allocating the cost of an asset over a period of time, hence, it is nothing else than depreciation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. ALFA LAVAL INDIA LTD.,, PUNE

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2638/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Smt. Nandita Kanchan
Section 14Section 41(1)Section 92C

section 41(1). Therefore, by following the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, the addition of Rs.72,74,140/- made on account of the gain on settlement of the sales tax deferred liability was deleted. 13. We have perused the case record and heard rival contentions in the paper book filed, copies of the decision

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 CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE vs. M/S. BILCARE LIMITED, PUNE

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

ITA 273/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Gupta
Section 92C

depreciation in respect of each asset that was previously allowed under Section 32(1)(c) and the taxation of balancing charge under Section 41

M/S. BILCARE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE

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

ITA 334/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Gupta
Section 92C

depreciation in respect of each asset that was previously allowed under Section 32(1)(c) and the taxation of balancing charge under Section 41

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

section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer had disallowed the claim of assessee. He further pointed out that while disallowing the same, the Assessing Officer had followed the decision in earlier year i.e. assessment year 2011-12. He then, referred to the order of CIT(A) relating to assessment year 2011-12 and pointed out that

PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 932/PUN/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

41,046/- as an application of income. He ought to have appreciated that depreciation on leased assets is allowable considering the CBDT circular no.2 of 2001 dated 9-2-2001. 10. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, clarify, explain, modify, delete any of the grounds of appeal, and to seek any just and fair relief. 4. The assessee

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 945/PUN/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

41,046/- as an application of income. He ought to have appreciated that depreciation on leased assets is allowable considering the CBDT circular no.2 of 2001 dated 9-2-2001. 10. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, clarify, explain, modify, delete any of the grounds of appeal, and to seek any just and fair relief. 4. The assessee

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 944/PUN/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

41,046/- as an application of income. He ought to have appreciated that depreciation on leased assets is allowable considering the CBDT circular no.2 of 2001 dated 9-2-2001. 10. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, clarify, explain, modify, delete any of the grounds of appeal, and to seek any just and fair relief. 4. The assessee

PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 929/PUN/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

41,046/- as an application of income. He ought to have appreciated that depreciation on leased assets is allowable considering the CBDT circular no.2 of 2001 dated 9-2-2001. 10. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, clarify, explain, modify, delete any of the grounds of appeal, and to seek any just and fair relief. 4. The assessee

PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 930/PUN/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

41,046/- as an application of income. He ought to have appreciated that depreciation on leased assets is allowable considering the CBDT circular no.2 of 2001 dated 9-2-2001. 10. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, clarify, explain, modify, delete any of the grounds of appeal, and to seek any just and fair relief. 4. The assessee

PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 931/PUN/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

41,046/- as an application of income. He ought to have appreciated that depreciation on leased assets is allowable considering the CBDT circular no.2 of 2001 dated 9-2-2001. 10. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, clarify, explain, modify, delete any of the grounds of appeal, and to seek any just and fair relief. 4. The assessee

JOHNSON MATTHEY CHEMICALS INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,,RAIGAD vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2009-10 is

ITA 630/PUN/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2018AY 2008-09

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

Section 143(3)Section 147

41,188 has been claimed in the AY 2008-09, despite of the fact that the depreciation claim on other assets, amounting to Rs.7,12,04,732, also included assets acquired in years subsequent to the AY 2003-04 including the current AY i.e. 2008-09. Not following Rule of consistency 3. Erred in disallowing depreciation on intangible and other

JOHNSON MATTHEY CHEMICALS INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,,RAIGAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2009-10 is

ITA 1274/PUN/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2018AY 2006-07

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

Section 143(3)Section 147

41,188 has been claimed in the AY 2008-09, despite of the fact that the depreciation claim on other assets, amounting to Rs.7,12,04,732, also included assets acquired in years subsequent to the AY 2003-04 including the current AY i.e. 2008-09. Not following Rule of consistency 3. Erred in disallowing depreciation on intangible and other

JOHNSON MATTHEY CHEMICALS INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,,RAIGAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2009-10 is

ITA 1275/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2018AY 2009-10

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

Section 143(3)Section 147

41,188 has been claimed in the AY 2008-09, despite of the fact that the depreciation claim on other assets, amounting to Rs.7,12,04,732, also included assets acquired in years subsequent to the AY 2003-04 including the current AY i.e. 2008-09. Not following Rule of consistency 3. Erred in disallowing depreciation on intangible and other

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. JOHNSON MATTHEY CHEMICALS (I) PVT. LTD.,, RAIGAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2009-10 is

ITA 1313/PUN/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2018AY 2006-07

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

Section 143(3)Section 147

41,188 has been claimed in the AY 2008-09, despite of the fact that the depreciation claim on other assets, amounting to Rs.7,12,04,732, also included assets acquired in years subsequent to the AY 2003-04 including the current AY i.e. 2008-09. Not following Rule of consistency 3. Erred in disallowing depreciation on intangible and other

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. JOHNSON MATTHEY CHEMICALS (I) PVT. LTD.,, RAIGAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2009-10 is

ITA 1314/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2018AY 2009-10

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

Section 143(3)Section 147

41,188 has been claimed in the AY 2008-09, despite of the fact that the depreciation claim on other assets, amounting to Rs.7,12,04,732, also included assets acquired in years subsequent to the AY 2003-04 including the current AY i.e. 2008-09. Not following Rule of consistency 3. Erred in disallowing depreciation on intangible and other

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1) , PUNE vs. FIAT INDIA AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

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

ITA 1098/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154

depreciation (“UD”) were required to be reduced for the purposes of Explanation (iii) to section 115JB of the Act, on a conservative and rational basis, the assessee, in its return of income for AY 2013-14 filed on 26th November 2013,reduced the amount of INR 300 crores in the ratio of BFL and UD (refer Page