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.

14 results for “depreciation”+ Long Term Capital Gainsclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,239Delhi843Bangalore365Chennai346Kolkata206Ahmedabad129Jaipur101Hyderabad67Indore47Raipur42Pune39Chandigarh37Karnataka29Cochin27Lucknow27Visakhapatnam18Surat17Nagpur16SC14Guwahati8Telangana7Jodhpur6Panaji6Rajkot5Calcutta5Kerala4Amritsar4Cuttack3Agra2Varanasi2Allahabad1Punjab & Haryana1Himachal Pradesh1Patna1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Section 17(5)(d)7Section 115J6Section 36(1)(vii)4Section 804Section 36(1)(iii)4Section 43(1)4Depreciation4Deduction3Capital Gains3Section 37(1)

NAVIN JINDAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

C.A. No.-000634-000634 - 2006Supreme Court11 Jan 2010
Section 48(2)

Long term capital loss due to depreciation in the value of 1500 original share of JISCO as a result of right issue of PCDs after adjusting the profit realized on a/c of discussed above Less : Deduction u/s 48(2): On Rs.15000/- @ 100% On Rs.2303200/- @ 60% (B) Net Income under the head “capital gains

VATSALA SHENOY vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

C.A. No.-001234-001234 - 2012Supreme Court18 Oct 2016
Section 260Section 583(4)(a)

LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS (A1+A2) Rs. 11,62,50,244 III Short-term Capital gain on transfer of movable (depreciable

2
Section 260A2
Addition to Income2

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)

long as non-compete fee in question is 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

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

Long-Term Capital 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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI vs. TULSYAN NEC LTD

C.A. No.-010677-010679 - 2010Supreme Court16 Dec 2010
Section 115J

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. 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)

gains of business under Sections 28 to 43D of the IT Act. In reply, the Department contended before us that the IT Act is a separate code by itself; that the taxable total income has to be computed strictly in terms of the provisions of the IT Act; that the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (“RBI Act” for short

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. CORE HEALTH CARE LTD

C.A. No.-003952-003955 - 2002Supreme Court08 Feb 2008
For Respondent: M/s. Core Health Care Ltd
Section 260ASection 28Section 36(1)(iii)Section 43(1)

gains of business and, therefore, the said section commences with the words "In Sections 28 to 41 and unless the context otherwise requires" "actual cost" shall mean the actual cost of the assets to the assessee, reducing by that portion of the cost thereof, if any, as has been met directly or indirectly by any other person or authority

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

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
Section 32

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

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

MALAYALA MANORAMA CO LTD. vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX, TRIVANDRUM

The appeals are allowed and the

C.A. No.-005420-005423 - 2002Supreme Court10 Apr 2008
For Respondent: Commissioner of Income Tax,Trivandrum
Section 115JSection 33Section 80Section 80V

capital expenditure on scientific research and development which is fully deductible under section 35 of the 1961 Act would be assessed to tax under this section. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that in the profit & loss account the assessee has debited depreciation at the rates prescribed by the Income-tax Rules, 1962. This has been the consistent

UNIVERSAL PLAST LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CALCUTTA

In the result, we hold that both the High Courts were right in answering

C.A. No.-000207-000207 - 1995Supreme Court23 Mar 1999
For Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CALCUTTA
Section 256(1)Section 256(2)

capital nature insurance premia, interest on all advances, depreciation on newly acquired assets, bonus and gratuity to employees nor for any liability in respect of Sales Tax or tax on incomes, profits and gains made by the Licensee so far as they relate to the Licensee’s part of the income from the UPL factory and the Licensee hereby indemnified

M/S D. N. SINGH THROUGH PARTNER DUDHESHWAR NATH SINGH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

C.A. No.-003738-003739 - 2023Supreme Court16 May 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH

Section 260A

depreciation under Section 32. 57. This Court is called upon to decide the ambit of the word ‘owner’ in section 69A in the facts before us. This Court agrees with the High Court that the concept of ‘owner’ cannot be divorced from the context in which the expression is employed. In the case of Jodha Mal (supra), the property undoubtedly

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

C.A. No.-021762-021762 - 2017Supreme Court19 Oct 2022

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

termed as a commercial activity. This was the principal idea in omitting Section13(1)(bb) as it was considered as restrictive for carrying out such activities. It was argued that, substitution of the definition of “charitable purpose” in Section 2(15) by the Finance Act, 2008 has not changed the law. The words “in relation to any trade, commerce