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.

106 results for “depreciation”+ Section 49(1)(iii)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,544Delhi1,308Bangalore577Ahmedabad388Chennai308Kolkata254Jaipur180Chandigarh158Hyderabad152Raipur131Pune106Indore77Amritsar69Visakhapatnam68Cuttack54Karnataka53Cochin52Surat52Lucknow33Nagpur29Rajkot29Guwahati27Ranchi21SC21Telangana12Jodhpur10Allahabad9Agra9Patna6Varanasi5Kerala5Calcutta4Panaji3Dehradun3Jabalpur1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 17172Section 143(3)68Section 1156Depreciation47Addition to Income46Disallowance44Section 12A40Deduction34Section 143(2)25Section 147

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)

49 (iii) supplying goods, or providing services, from one unit to another unit or developer, in the same or different Special Economic Zone." Therefore, the legislative history of provisions of section 10AA would clearly reveal that the provisions of section 10AA have been inserted in the Income Tax Act in order to give effect to the provisions of Special Economic

REXEL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

Showing 1–20 of 106 · Page 1 of 6

25
Section 10(20)24
Section 26320

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 981/PUN/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 May 2025
Section 32(1)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)

49(1)(iii)(e) and Section 55(2)(a)(ii) of the Act, it is pertinent to\nnote that these provisions form part of the Chapter dealing with\n\"Capital Gains\" and Section 47 of the Act specifically excludes transfer\nof capital assets, pursuant to a scheme of amalgamation, from the\npurview of Section 45 of the Act. Therefore

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. SAGAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PUNE

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

ITA 1812/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Suhas Bora and Riya OswalFor Respondent: Shri S. Sadananda Singh, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 269SSection 37Section 68

depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year and for which a prior notice under Section 148 would be required to be issued. Section 147 does not contemplate an eventuality which Section 153A or Section 153C contemplates, the basis of which is inter alia a search action under Section 132 being resorted as noted hereinabove. Thus

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)

49,834/- (Rs.8,70,55,075 – Rs.3,26,05,241). However, the assessee has failed to take into account the effect of security deposits of Rs.3,26,05,241 collected by it against these written off bottles and cases. Also, these deposits of Rs.3,26,05,241/- are lying with the assessee since 31/3/1996 and earlier period. Thus, these deposits

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -11,, PUNE vs. CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED , (FORMERLY IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD.),, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1935/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

Section 10ASection 115JSection 391Section 72ASection 74

depreciation of the amalgamating company in relation to the income under the head “Profit and gains of business or profession”. It is not a panacea for all the tax related issues of amalgamation, so as to have application insofar as the other tax entitlements, privileges or benefits in the hands of the amalgamating company, are concerned. 14. Section 74 deals

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1857/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

Section 10ASection 115JSection 391Section 72ASection 74

depreciation of the amalgamating company in relation to the income under the head “Profit and gains of business or profession”. It is not a panacea for all the tax related issues of amalgamation, so as to have application insofar as the other tax entitlements, privileges or benefits in the hands of the amalgamating company, are concerned. 14. Section 74 deals

BHANSILAL RAMNATH AGARWAL CHARITABLE TRUST vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1147/PUN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1147, 1133, 1134 & 1136/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2009-10 & 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Smt. Nirupama Kotru, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 36

iii. Rajesh Rathi ( Para 6.2) 1,69,860 iv. Shivseva Trust ( Para 6.3) 1,15,746 6 Donation as per para 8 55,000 7 Prior period expenses as per 4,207 para 10 8 Employees contribution 1,64,980 towards P.F. as per Para 7 9 Employer contribution towards 17,445 P.F. as per Para 7 10 Capital Expenditure

BHANSILAL RAMNATH AGARWAL CHARITABLE TRUST vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1133/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1147, 1133, 1134 & 1136/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2009-10 & 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Smt. Nirupama Kotru, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 36

iii. Rajesh Rathi ( Para 6.2) 1,69,860 iv. Shivseva Trust ( Para 6.3) 1,15,746 6 Donation as per para 8 55,000 7 Prior period expenses as per 4,207 para 10 8 Employees contribution 1,64,980 towards P.F. as per Para 7 9 Employer contribution towards 17,445 P.F. as per Para 7 10 Capital Expenditure

BHANSILAL RAMNATH AGARWAL CHARITABLE TRUST vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1134/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1147, 1133, 1134 & 1136/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2009-10 & 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Smt. Nirupama Kotru, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 36

iii. Rajesh Rathi ( Para 6.2) 1,69,860 iv. Shivseva Trust ( Para 6.3) 1,15,746 6 Donation as per para 8 55,000 7 Prior period expenses as per 4,207 para 10 8 Employees contribution 1,64,980 towards P.F. as per Para 7 9 Employer contribution towards 17,445 P.F. as per Para 7 10 Capital Expenditure

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 342/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.342/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

Section 115JSection 195(2)Section 201(1)Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

49,818/-. 38. Now we come to the disallowance made under Rule 8D(2)(iii) amounting to Rs.75,43,252/-. It is seen that the same has been worked out by the AO at 0.50% of average amount of investments. This computation is strictly in accordance with the mandate of Rule 33 and IT(TP) A.No.10/Bang/2014 8D(2)(iii

BANK OF MAHARASHRA,PUNE vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 682/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan and Mrs. Lalitha RameswaranFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40A(7)

iii. Business Purchase iv. Depreciation Claim v. Default in TDS vi. Default in TDS & Disallowance for such Default vii. Refund Claim viii. Business Loss ix. ICDS Compliance and Adjustment x. Disallowance u/s 40A(7) (Gratuity provision) xi. Expenses incurred for Earning Exempt Income xii. Excess Contribution to Provident Fund, Superannuation Fund or Gratuity Fund xiii. Capital Gains/Income on Sale

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

1)(ii) of the Act. The Tribunal after placing reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ingersoll Rand International Ind. Ltd, 227 Taxman 176 ( Kar.) held that the assessee is eligible to claim depreciation on non- compete fee. The assessee’s claim of depreciation on goodwill was allowed by the Tribunal

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

1)(ii) of the Act. The Tribunal after placing reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ingersoll Rand International Ind. Ltd, 227 Taxman 176 ( Kar.) held that the assessee is eligible to claim depreciation on non- compete fee. The assessee’s claim of depreciation on goodwill was allowed by the Tribunal

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

1)(ii) of the Act. The Tribunal after placing reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ingersoll Rand International Ind. Ltd, 227 Taxman 176 ( Kar.) held that the assessee is eligible to claim depreciation on non- compete fee. The assessee’s claim of depreciation on goodwill was allowed by the Tribunal

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

1)(ii) of the Act. The Tribunal after placing reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ingersoll Rand International Ind. Ltd, 227 Taxman 176 ( Kar.) held that the assessee is eligible to claim depreciation on non- compete fee. The assessee’s claim of depreciation on goodwill was allowed by the Tribunal

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

1)(ii) of the Act. The Tribunal after placing reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ingersoll Rand International Ind. Ltd, 227 Taxman 176 ( Kar.) held that the assessee is eligible to claim depreciation on non- compete fee. The assessee’s claim of depreciation on goodwill was allowed by the Tribunal

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 has been allowed under this Act or under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), the provisions of sections 48 and 49 shall be subject to the following modifications :— (1) where the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the asset together with the full value of such consideration

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 has been allowed under this Act or under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), the provisions of sections 48 and 49 shall be subject to the following modifications :— (1) where the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the asset together with the full value of such consideration

KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD (SUCCESSOR KUMAR HOUSING CORPORATION PVT LTD),PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 14, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the

ITA 2874/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 32Section 36(1)(iii)

49,661/- in respect of an eligible project, the start of date of which is 24.03.2014. 6.7.11 If the revenue from these four projects were eligible for deduction u/s 80-IA(4)(iii), the appellant would have automatically claimed this deduction in the ensuing year. Therefore, it is proven that the claim of deduction u/s 80- IA(4)(iii

DCIT CIRCLE 1 NASHIK, NASHIK vs. SHREE SAI PROPERTIES, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 987/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year and for which a prior notice under Section 148 would be required to be issued. Section 147 does not contemplate an eventuality which Section 153A or Section 153C contemplates, the basis of which is inter alia a search action under Section 132 being resorted as noted hereinabove. Thus