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.

12 results for “depreciation”+ Section 43Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai76Delhi35Chennai29Ahmedabad18Pune12Kolkata10Visakhapatnam8Bangalore8SC6Rajkot3Chandigarh3Amritsar3Karnataka2Allahabad2Telangana2Hyderabad2Jaipur2Nagpur1Kerala1Cochin1Cuttack1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 69B30Section 133A6Survey u/s 133A6Deduction6Addition to Income6Section 43D5Section 80I5Section 69A5Section 115B5Disallowance

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHARAD NAGARI SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,, SOLAPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1240/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Achal SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Shingte
Section 145Section 260ASection 43D

43D were applicable in the case of assessee co-operative bank unless accrued interest was routed through P&L Account. However, the above decision has not been accepted by the CIT, Aurangabad and appeal u/s. 260A has been filed with the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad. Further, appeals u/s. 260A on the similar issue have also

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. PUNE CANTONMENT SAHAKARI BANK LTD,, PUNE

5
Unexplained Investment5
Section 1453

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 435/PUN/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj DandgavelFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Haldar
Section 145Section 148Section 154Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43D

43D of the 1961 Act, since the provisions of section 45Q of the 1934 Act had an overriding effect vis-a-vis income recognition principles in the Companies Act, 1956, the Assessing Officer was bound to follow the Reserve Bank of India Directions so-far as income recognition was concerned.” Before us, Revenue has not placed any contrary binding decision

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

depreciation on UPS to the extent of 60%. Similar view was taken by the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case in assessment year 2010-11. Thus, the ground No. 5 of the appeal is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid. 8. The ground No. 6 of the appeal is : “6. In the facts and circumstances of the case

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

depreciation on UPS to the extent of 60%. Similar view was taken by the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case in assessment year 2010-11. Thus, the ground No. 5 of the appeal is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid. 8. The ground No. 6 of the appeal is : “6. In the facts and circumstances of the case

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

depreciation on UPS to the extent of 60%. Similar view was taken by the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case in assessment year 2010-11. Thus, the ground No. 5 of the appeal is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid. 8. The ground No. 6 of the appeal is : “6. In the facts and circumstances of the case

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

depreciation on UPS to the extent of 60%. Similar view was taken by the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case in assessment year 2010-11. Thus, the ground No. 5 of the appeal is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid. 8. The ground No. 6 of the appeal is : “6. In the facts and circumstances of the case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7, PUNE vs. LB KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 240/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69ASection 69BSection 80I

depreciation of each windmill which has already been set off against other business income of the assessee, cannot be notionally brought forward, as done by the assessing officer. The appellant has claimed that similar disallowance was made by the learned A.O. in the earlier years but the said action of the assessing officer has not been upheld at the level

M/S. L.B. KUNJIR,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 417/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69ASection 69BSection 80I

depreciation of each windmill which has already been set off against other business income of the assessee, cannot be notionally brought forward, as done by the assessing officer. The appellant has claimed that similar disallowance was made by the learned A.O. in the earlier years but the said action of the assessing officer has not been upheld at the level

DCIT CIRCLE 7, BODHI TOWER SALISBURY PARK vs. L B KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1046/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69ASection 69BSection 80I

depreciation of each windmill which has already been set off against other business income of the assessee, cannot be notionally brought forward, as done by the assessing officer. The appellant has claimed that similar disallowance was made by the learned A.O. in the earlier years but the said action of the assessing officer has not been upheld at the level

DCIT, PUNE vs. L B KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1088/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69ASection 69BSection 80I

depreciation of each windmill which has already been set off against other business income of the assessee, cannot be notionally brought forward, as done by the assessing officer. The appellant has claimed that similar disallowance was made by the learned A.O. in the earlier years but the said action of the assessing officer has not been upheld at the level

M/S. L.B. KUNJIR,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 418/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69ASection 69BSection 80I

depreciation of each windmill which has already been set off against other business income of the assessee, cannot be notionally brought forward, as done by the assessing officer. The appellant has claimed that similar disallowance was made by the learned A.O. in the earlier years but the said action of the assessing officer has not been upheld at the level

M/S GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 427/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 10(35)Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

43D. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Plastiblends India Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2009) 185 Taxman 187 after considering the ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India (supra) held that there has to be profit in the eligible business and such eligible business can be any of the business as referred