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.

284 results for “depreciation”+ Section 50clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,706Delhi2,343Bangalore914Chennai737Ahmedabad647Kolkata542Jaipur307Hyderabad301Pune284Chandigarh250Raipur158Cochin135Indore115Surat110Visakhapatnam110Amritsar86Cuttack85Karnataka66Lucknow51Rajkot50Guwahati44SC42Ranchi41Nagpur38Jodhpur37Agra24Telangana21Panaji15Dehradun13Allahabad11Calcutta10Patna9Kerala8Jabalpur5ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Orissa1Rajasthan1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)69Addition to Income65Disallowance49Depreciation46Section 14835Deduction32Section 12A24Section 143(1)22Section 115J20Section 143(2)

M/S. VARDHAN NUTRITIONS AND CHEMICALS PVT. LTD.,,RAIGAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 662/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.662/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Vardhan Nutritions & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.535/2, Ershimgathi Road, Old Thana Naka Road, Thana Naka, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Panvel, Dist. Raigad. …. Pan: Aabcv9194J Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Panvel

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 143(3)Section 72Section 72(1)

section 50 provides for a special procedure for computation of capital gains in the case of depreciable assets. Section 50

Showing 1–20 of 284 · Page 1 of 15

...
19
Section 14718
Section 132(4)17

ASHOK NARAYAN BHOSALE,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

ITA 1501/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1501/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ashok Narayan Bhosale, The Deputy Commissioner Of Ashok Narayan Bhosle Bunglow At Vs Income Tax, Kaveri Nagar, Pratham Housing Cirlce-8, Pune. Society, Wakad, Pune – 411057. Pan: Aaspb 3588 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri S.P.Walimbe - Dr Date Of Hearing 10/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 14/03/2022

Section 1Section 10Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 32

50% depreciation in subsequent year. But the fact remains even without the aid of statutory amendment, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Rittal India Pvt. Ltd. case (supra.) had held that “the assessee can claim the remaining depreciation in the subsequent assessment years.” Now with the introduction to the proviso to Section

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(3),, SOLAPUR vs. SHRI. ULHAS MALLIKARJUN PATIL,, SOLAPUR

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

ITA 1751/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1751/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, Shri Ulhas Mallikarjun Patil, Ward-2(3), Solapur, Vs Block No.3, Sunandan . Complex, Near Dayanand College, Ravivar Peth, Solapur – 413004. Pan: Akepp 1943 P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Krishna V Gujarathi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 05/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 06/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-7, Pune’S Order Dated 31.08.2018 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-7/Wd- 2(3)/10434/2016-147, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 50

50 would apply even though no depreciation is claimed. The AO has computed depreciation on cost of acquisition of Rs. 2,36,47,980/- from F.Y. 2007-08 to 2012-13. This artificial computation of depreciation would result into change of income in earlier years. Even in case of commercial assets if no depreciation is claimed than provisions of section

NAWAB PASHASAHEB JAMADAR,LATUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, LATUR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 731/PUN/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपीऱ सं. /Ita No.731/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Nawab Pashasaheb Jamadar, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Global Panacea Hospital, Latur Gross Golden Jubilee, B-Block, Mahaeboob Nagar, Ambajogai Road, Latur – 413 512, Maharashtra Pan : Aaopj3902E Appellant Respondent

Section 250Section 50Section 50(2)Section 54

section 50 deems capital gain in respect of depreciable asset as short term capital gain. The ambit of section 50

ZF STEERING GEAR (INDIA) LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1 (1),, PUNE

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

ITA 309/PUN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani
Section 143(3)Section 14A

50% depreciation in subsequent year. But the fact remains even without the aid of statutory amendment, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Rittal India Pvt. Ltd. case (supra.) had held that “the assessee can claim the remaining depreciation in the subsequent assessment years.” Now with the introduction to the proviso to Section

CUMMINS INDIA LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 685/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.685/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved &For Respondent: Shri T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, CIT
Section 14ASection 35

50% of the additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) of the IT Act, 1961?” The Hon‟ble Bombay High

INCOME TAX OFFICER, NASHIK vs. TRAMBAK RUBBER INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, SINNAR, NASHIK

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 845/PUN/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta
Section 143(3)Section 295

50%. 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the disallowance of depreciation is covered under exception 10(c) as amendment to CBDT Circular 3 of 2018 dated 11.07.2018. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and delete any ground (s) of appeal.” 3. Mr. Mehta invited my attention

PRIDE AND EXPERT PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (1) , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 397/PUN/2020[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Pune16 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena
Section 2(11)Section 32Section 50

depreciation and the ld. A.O was correct in assessing the same as short term capital gain u/s 50 of the Act. 4 Pride & Expert Properties Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2013-14 5. At the time of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that as per basic requirement for invoking section

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

depreciable assets in each of the four classes of assets, namely, buildings, machinery, plant and furniture.‖‖ 71. The Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sony India (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT, 88 taxmann.com 58 (Delhi) had occasion to interpret the above provisions of section 32 r.w.s. 43(6) and section 50

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

depreciable assets in each of the four classes of assets, namely, buildings, machinery, plant and furniture.‖‖ 71. The Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sony India (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT, 88 taxmann.com 58 (Delhi) had occasion to interpret the above provisions of section 32 r.w.s. 43(6) and section 50

KOLHAPUUR ZILLA SAH DUDH UTPADAK SANGH LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 617/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.616 To 618/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12 Kolhapur Zilla Sah Dudh Utpadak Sangh Ltd., B-1, Midc, Gokul Shiraon, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Kolhapur …. Pan: Aaaak0230D Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1, Kolhapur

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, since the machinery purchased was used for less than 180 days, the assessee would have to restrict his claim of normal as well as additional depreciation to 50

KOLHAPUUR ZILLA SAH DUDH UTPADAK SANGH LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 616/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.616 To 618/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12 Kolhapur Zilla Sah Dudh Utpadak Sangh Ltd., B-1, Midc, Gokul Shiraon, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Kolhapur …. Pan: Aaaak0230D Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1, Kolhapur

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, since the machinery purchased was used for less than 180 days, the assessee would have to restrict his claim of normal as well as additional depreciation to 50

KOLHAPUUR ZILLA SAH DUDH UTPADAK SANGH LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 618/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.616 To 618/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12 Kolhapur Zilla Sah Dudh Utpadak Sangh Ltd., B-1, Midc, Gokul Shiraon, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Kolhapur …. Pan: Aaaak0230D Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1, Kolhapur

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, since the machinery purchased was used for less than 180 days, the assessee would have to restrict his claim of normal as well as additional depreciation to 50

PRADEEP KISANLAL BOOB,NASHIK vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1, NASHIK, NASHIK

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

ITA 189/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.189/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 134Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

depreciable asset as provided in section 50 of the Act. 9. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has contended

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

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 974/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 36(1)(v)Section 37

depreciation is not allowable in respect of non-compete fee as held by Hon. Delhi High Court in the case of Sharp Business Systems vs CIT 27 taxmann.com 50 as discussed by the AO in detail in the assessment order. 12. Coming to the issue of Distribution Network rights and customer list, it must be appreciated that the same

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

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 975/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 36(1)(v)Section 37

depreciation is not allowable in respect of non-compete fee as held by Hon. Delhi High Court in the case of Sharp Business Systems vs CIT 27 taxmann.com 50 as discussed by the AO in detail in the assessment order. 12. Coming to the issue of Distribution Network rights and customer list, it must be appreciated that the same

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SATARA vs. THE KARAD URBAN CO. OP. BANK LTD KARAD, KARAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1564/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Mr. Deepak ChintamanFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar –
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37

depreciation” on AFS securities charged to P&L Account in AY 2018-19 under the provisions of section 37 of the Act rejecting the claim of the assessee. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) reversed the findings of the Ld. AO and allowed the claim of the assessee for the reasons reproduced above. Before us, the Ld. DR has argued

EMERSON CLIMATE TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2),, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and stay application moved by assessee is dismissed

ITA 2432/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2432/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Danesh BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 92C

section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. However, since the assets were added to the block of Plant and Machinery which was put to use for less than 6 months, additional depreciation was allowed to the extent of 50

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, ICHALKARANJI vs. PARIKH SHANKARLAL KUNDANMAL,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeals of Revenue and the Cross Objections by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 733/PUN/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.733 To 736/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05 To 2006-07 & 2009-10

For Appellant: M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 143(3)Section 80I

depreciation on windmill ought to have been deducted from the receipts generated from the business of generation of power, by treating the said business on standalone basis and the contention of the assessee in this regard, was rejected. The Assessing Officer was directed to re-compute the carried forward losses from the windmill from the initial assessment year after giving

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, ICHALKARANJI vs. PARIKH SHANKARLAL KUNDANMAL,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeals of Revenue and the Cross Objections by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 736/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.733 To 736/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05 To 2006-07 & 2009-10

For Appellant: M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 143(3)Section 80I

depreciation on windmill ought to have been deducted from the receipts generated from the business of generation of power, by treating the said business on standalone basis and the contention of the assessee in this regard, was rejected. The Assessing Officer was directed to re-compute the carried forward losses from the windmill from the initial assessment year after giving