Search: depreciation | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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 72Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai72 Kolkata25 Chennai25 Delhi24 Ahmedabad16 Bangalore9 Pune9 Hyderabad7 Visakhapatnam3 Karnataka3 Jaipur3 SC2 Rajkot1 Raipur1

Key Topics

Section 115B24 Section 72A10 Section 143(1)7 Section 143(3)6 Depreciation6 Section 1545 Section 1485 Section 40A(3)5 Addition to Income5 Set Off of Losses

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1(1),, PUNE vs. M/S. CUMMINS SALES & SERVICES (I),LTD,(FORMERLY KNOWN AS CUMMINS DIESELS SALES & SERVICE LTD,), PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands partly allowed

ITA 2121/PUN/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2022AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Shivraj B. Morey

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 72ASection 72A(4)

depreciation losses of Rs.3,47,20,047/- pertaining to demerged undertaking 3 under sub-section (4) of section 72A of the Act. The Assessing

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

5

Carry Forward of Losses4

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

section 72A of the Act, which provide for the set off and carry forward only of the brought forward loss and unabsorbed depreciation

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

section 72A of the Act, which provide for the set off and carry forward only of the brought forward loss and unabsorbed depreciation

SATARA ENGINEERING PROJECTS AND EQUIPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SATARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SATARA, SATARA

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

ITA 2450/PUN/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jan 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2450/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2024-25

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar &For Respondent: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

depreciation deemed so under section 72A where such loss or depreciation is attributable to any of the deductions referred to in sub-clause

M/S KOLTE-PATIL INTEGRATED TOWNSHIPS LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7, PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 1990/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 154

depreciation deemed so under section 72A, if such loss or depreciation is attributable to any of the deductions referred to in clause

GENERAL INDUSTRIAL CONTROS LTD.,PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 8, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside, and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 38/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

depreciation deemed so under section 72A, if such loss or depreciation is attributable to any of the deductions referred to in clause

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. JAIN IRRIGATION SYSTEM LTD.,, JALGAON

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid

ITA 1184/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Prashant MaheshwariFor Respondent: Mrs. Nandia Kanchan

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 72A

section 72A(2) were not fulfilled by the assessee. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) without appreciating the findings of Assessing Officer has allowed the claim of assessee. 4. On the other hand Shri Prashant Maheshwari appearing on behalf of the assessee vehemently defended the impugned order. The ld. AR submitted that unabsorbed depreciation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. FRESENIUS KABI INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2096/PUN/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2096/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Dcit, Circle- 1(2), .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pune. बनाम / V/S. Fresenius Kabi India Pvt. Ltd., Heritage House, 6 – E, Ramabai Ambedkar Road, Pune. ……""यथ" / Respondent Pan : Aaacf2614E Revenue By : Smt. Amrita Mishra, Cit Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01.01.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Pune Dated 02.06.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Are As Under :- “1. The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Is Contrary To Law & To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Grossly Erred In Allowing Set Off Of Unabsorbed Depreciation To The Tune Of Rs.30 Crs. 3. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Grossly Erred In Allowing The Ground In Favour Of Assessee Ignoring The Provisions Of Section 72A Of The Act. 4. For These & Such Other Grounds As May Be Urged At The Time Of Hearing, The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) May Be Vacated & That Of The Assessing Officer Be Restored.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Smt. Amrita Mishra, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 72A

depreciation to the tune of Rs.30 crs. 3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) grossly erred in allowing the ground in favour of assessee ignoring the provisions of section 72A

ITO, WARD-1(1), SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR vs. MS. KSHIRSAGAR FABRICS, SOLAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 97/PUN/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

72A, set-off of brought forward losses on amalgamating company on amalgamation with assessee was not in order, reopening of assessment on second thought on same audit objection was not permissible while exercising powers under section 147 read with section 148. 13. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. ICICI Securities