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.

37 results for “depreciation”+ Capital Gainsclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,188 Delhi1,571 Chennai744 Bangalore695 Kolkata408 Ahmedabad237 Jaipur149 Hyderabad136 Karnataka116 Chandigarh109 Pune84 Indore63 Raipur60 Cochin40 Lucknow38 SC37 Visakhapatnam25 Surat25 Nagpur22 Rajkot19 Telangana17 Guwahati13 Kerala11 Jodhpur8 Amritsar8 Calcutta8 Cuttack8 Panaji6 Patna5 Ranchi4 Agra4 Dehradun3 Orissa3 Rajasthan2 Punjab & Haryana2 Gauhati1 MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1 Himachal Pradesh1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1 Allahabad1 A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Section 8024 Deduction19 Depreciation18 Section 41(2)15 Section 3211 Section 379 Addition to Income9 Section 115J7 Section 17(5)(d)7 Section 80H

VATSALA SHENOY vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

C.A. No.-001234-001234 - 2012Supreme Court18 Oct 2016

Section 260Section 583(4)(a)

Capital gain on transfer of movable (depreciable asset) u/s. 50 4.4% of Rs.12,73,55,600 Rs. 56,03,646 Less

NAVIN JINDAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

C.A. No.-000634-000634 - 2006Supreme Court11 Jan 2010

depreciation may, in a commercial sense, be deemed to be the value of the right which she subsequently transferred. The capital gain

Showing 1–20 of 37 · Page 1 of 2

7

SHARP BUSINESS SYSTEM THR. FINANCE DIRECTOR MR. YOSHIHISA MIZUNO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III N.D

The appeals are hereby disposed of in terms of

C.A. No.-004072-004072 - 2014Supreme Court19 Dec 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA

Section 32(1)(ii)

capital expenditure, the same would be entitled for depreciation. ITAT, therefore, directed the assessing officer to allow the claim of depreciation on the amount of non-compete fee paid treating the same as intangible asset. 10.7. Assailing the aforesaid finding of the ITAT, revenue preferred appeal before the Bombay High Court being Income 18 Tax Appeal No.556

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(CENTRAL) vs. M/S. GWALIOR RAYON SILK MFG.(WVG.)CO.LTD

The appeal is partly allowed

C.A. No.-002916-002916 - 1980Supreme Court29 Apr 1992

For Respondent: GWALIOR RAYON SILK MANUFACTURING CO. LTD

Section 256(1)Section 256(2)Section 32

capital expenditure incurred by an assessee on construction of road even within factory premises is not entitled to depreciation as a deduction in the computation of profits and gains

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MAHENDRA MILLS

The appeal is dismissed

C.A. No.-005394-005394 - 1994Supreme Court15 Mar 2000

For Respondent: MAHENDRA MILLS

Section 32Section 34Section 72Section 73

Capital gains. Various sections deal with how income, profits and gains under each http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 21 head have to be computed. Section 10 deals with the computation of profits and gains of any business carried on by an assessee. Section 10(2) prescribes the allowances which have to be deducted before computing

SHIV RAJ GUPTA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI IV

C.A. No.-012044-012044 - 2016Supreme Court22 Jul 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

capital, depreciation, reserves etc., a part of it should in all fairness go to the employees.” Also, this Court in S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT (2007) 1 SCC 781 held as follows: “36. We agree with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Dalmia Cement (B) Ltd. [(2002) 254 ITR 377 (Del)] that once

NECTAR BEVERAGES PVT. LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX

C.A. No.-005291-005291 - 2004Supreme Court06 Jul 2009

Section 32(1)(ii)Section 34Section 41(1)Section 41(2)

capital gains on the ground that the assets stood depreciated at 100% under the proviso to Section 32(1)(ii) and hence

KILLICK NIXON LTD., MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMNR. OF INCOME TAX,MUMBAI

In the result, we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High

C.A. No.-002614-002614 - 2001Supreme Court25 Nov 2002

For Respondent: DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI AND ORS

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 87Section 90(1)Section 91Section 92

capital gains to the extent of Rs. 4,00,000.00. (d) Disallowance under Rule 6D to the extent of Rs. 31,963.00." Being aggrieved by the decision of the CIT (Appeals), the assessee carried an appeal before the Income Tax Tribunal in respect of premium, depreciation

M/S. VIJAY INDUSTRIES vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are allowed

C.A. No.-001581-001582 - 2005Supreme Court01 Mar 2019

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

capital gains and income from other sources. Insofar as income under the head ‘profits and gains of business or professions’ is concerned, provisions thereto are contained in Sections 28 to 44DB of the Act. Section 28 specifies various incomes which shall be chargeable to income tax under this head. Thereafter, Section 29 provides that income referred to in Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI vs. TULSYAN NEC LTD

C.A. No.-010677-010679 - 2010Supreme Court16 Dec 2010

depreciation; or (iv) the amount of profits derived by an industrial undertaking from the business of generation or generation and distribution of power; or (v) the amount of profits derived by an industrial undertaking located in an industrially backward State or district as referred to in sub-section (4) and sub- section (5) of section 80-IB, for the assessment

M/S MANGALORE GANESH BEEDI WORKS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MYSORE

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

C.A. No.-010547-010548 - 2011Supreme Court15 Oct 2015

Section 35ASection 37

capital gains. The decision of the Tribunal has been accepted by the Revenue and we really see no reason why a different conclusion should be arrived at in so far as the Assessee is concerned. 27. The High Court denied any benefit to the Assessee under Section 35A and Section 35AB of the Act since it was held that what

M/S. SOUTHERN TECHNOLOGIES LTD. vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, COIMBATORE

C.A. No.-001337-001337 - 2003Supreme Court11 Jan 2010

Section 145Section 2(24)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37Section 37(1)

depreciable assets, capital gains, etc. which items are all credited to P&L Account, but, which are exempted under the IT Act would

MANSAROVAR COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI

C.A. No.-005769-005769 - 2022Supreme Court10 Apr 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

Section 26Section 6(3)

capital gains in a particular case may tantamount to a failure in raising a substantial question of law in terms of Section 260A of the Act. However, the same may not apply on interest as the interest is automatic and mandatory. 4.14 Making above submissions and relying upon the aforesaid decisions, it is prayed that the present appeals be dismissed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) CIRCLE 1(2) vs. M/S M.R. SHAH LOGISTICS PVT. LTD

Appeal is allowed in these terms, without order on costs

C.A. No.-002453-002453 - 2022Supreme Court28 Mar 2022

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 147

Gains (LTCG) in the shares of Shri Ganesh Spinners Limited (now known as Yantra Natural Resources Limited) from Shirish Chandrakant Shah (SCS) through Pradip Birewar. Pradip Birewar is an Ahmedabad based accommodation entry provider who is facilitating one time and other accommodation entries including LTCG entries to various clients on receipt of cash. He is facilitating these entries through bigger

CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX vs. M/S SAFARI RETREATS PRIVATE LIMITED

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

C.A. No.-002948-002948 - 2023Supreme Court03 Oct 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA

Section 17Section 17(5)(c)Section 17(5)(d)

capital goods and plant and machinery if he claims depreciation on the said tax component under the Income Tax Act. The object is that a registered person does not take advantage of both depreciation and ITC. 29. Now we come to sub-Section (4) of Section 16. Before the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2022, the sub-section read

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S WOODWARD GOVERNOR INDIA P. LTD

C.A. No.-002206-002206 - 2009Supreme Court08 Apr 2009

Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 37(1)Section 43(1)

capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession". Explanation.- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any expenditure incurred by an assessee

M/S. I.C.D.S. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

C.A. No.-003282-003282 - 2008Supreme Court14 Jan 2013

capital asset and thereby losing gradually investment caused by wear and tear, and would need to replace the same by having lost its value fully over a period of time.” 3 (1999) 7 SCC 106 16 Page 17 JUDGMENT 21. Black’s Law Dictionary (6th Edn.) defines 'owner' as under: “Owner. The person in whom is vested the ownership, dominion

DY. COMMNR., INCOME TAX, COCHIN vs. M/S. S.T.N. TEXTILE LTD

C.A. No.-004101-004101 - 2003Supreme Court25 Oct 2005

For Respondent: M/S.S.T.N.TEXTILE LTD

Section 31Section 31(1)Section 37

depreciation allowed. The matter went in appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal which, by its order affirmed the findings of the appellate authority. The matter ultimately came up before the High Court at the instance of the revenue and two questions were framed for the opinion of the High Court which are as follows :- "1. Whether, on the facts

M/S.VIRTUAL SOFT SYSTEMS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-I

C.A. No.-007115-007115 - 2005Supreme Court06 Feb 2007

For Respondent: Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-I

Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

depreciation allowance which it was entitled to under the Income-tax Act came to Rs.7,84,063 thus converting the profit into a loss of Rs.2,19,848 for income-tax purposes, and the company was adjudged not to be liable to income-tax for the relevant assessment year 1951-52. The company, however, declared dividends in that year amounting

PLASTIBLENDS INDIA LIMITED THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR vs. ADDL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE 8(2) MUMBAI

C.A. No.-000238-000238 - 2012Supreme Court09 Oct 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

Section 143(1)(a)Section 32Section 80

gains of the business, Sections 30 to 43D had to be applied which would embrace Section 32 as well. 12 8) Counsel appearing in other appeals for the assessees made their submissions almost on the same lines thereby virtually adopting the arguments advanced by Mr. Percy. 9) Learned counsel for the Revenue emphatically refuted the aforesaid submissions. He extensively referred