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.

79 results for “depreciation”+ Section 11(6)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,690Delhi4,330Bangalore1,724Chennai1,633Kolkata1,007Ahmedabad599Hyderabad356Jaipur326Pune296Karnataka241Chandigarh180Raipur165Indore139Surat136Cochin125Amritsar119Visakhapatnam89SC79Cuttack77Lucknow77Rajkot71Telangana58Jodhpur52Nagpur50Ranchi38Guwahati34Kerala20Patna19Dehradun19Calcutta16Panaji16Agra11Allahabad10Varanasi8Orissa6Punjab & Haryana6Rajasthan6Jabalpur4Gauhati2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1Tripura1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 8057Deduction34Depreciation31Addition to Income21Section 3218Section 80H14Section 14813Section 14312Section 260A11Section 10B

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

11 of 21 the revised return. Income-tax Officer nevertheless allowed depreciation, which was claimed in the original return. The Court noticed from the provisions of section 32(1) of the said Act that the deduction in respect of depreciation on the items mentioned therein shall be allowed subject to the provisions of section 34 of the Act. Under section

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

C.A. No.-021762-021762 - 2017

Showing 1–20 of 79 · Page 1 of 4

11
Section 115J11
Exemption10
Supreme Court
19 Oct 2022

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 12AA(1) of the IT Act, on 18.05.1979 and is engaged in the activity of promotion of the export of all kind of ready-made garments, knitwear, and garments made of leather, jute and hemp. It does not per se engage in any activity for profit, and its mandate is to ensure that Indian apparel manufacturers, are given forums

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

6) It is not in dispute that all the assessees in these appeals are those industrial undertakings which fulfil the conditions mentioned in Section 80-IA and, therefore, are entitled to deductions as stipulated in sub-section (5) of the said Section. It is also not in dispute that all the assessees fall in that category of industrial undertakings which

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,DIBRUGARH vs. DOOM DOOMA INDIA LTD

C.A. No.-001094-001094 - 2009Supreme Court18 Feb 2009
Section 260ASection 28Section 32Section 32(1)(i)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 43(6)(b)

Section 43(6)(b) of the 1961 Act. This contention of the assessee was accepted by the majority judgment which held that in fixing the depreciation allowances for the years 8 in which the assessee was assessed as a non-resident under the Income-tax Act, 1922, the ITO had “actually allowed” only a portion of the amount towards depreciation

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)

6 (2011) 332 ITR 602 7 (2023) 458 ITR 593 8 2011 SCC OnLine Del 5114 37 fee is concerned, it certainly results in creation of an intangible asset. There are two aspects of allowance of depreciation in respect of intangible assets. Firstly, it should fall within one of the enumerated categories i.e. know-how, patents, copyrights, trade marks, licenses

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SHIMLA vs. M/S AARHAM SOFTRONICS

C.A. No.-001784-001784 - 2019Supreme Court20 Feb 2019

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

Section 80Section 80I

6) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no deduction shall be allowed to any undertaking or enterprise under this section, where the total period of deduction inclusive of the period of deduction under this section, or under the second proviso to sub-section (4) of section 80-IB or under section 10C, as the case may be, exceeds ten assessment

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)

6 TC 542 (HL)).” v) In the case of Nandlal Gandalal (supra), this Court has held that the expression “control and management” in Section 4A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, means de CA 5769/2022 Etc. Page 59 of 67 facto control and management and not merely the right or power to control and manage

M/S. SYNCO INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. ASSESSING OFFICER,INCOME TAX MUMBAI &ANR

C.A. No.-004190-004191 - 2002Supreme Court13 Mar 2008
For Respondent: Assessing Officer, Income Tax,Mumbai & Anr
Section 260Section 80Section 80ASection 80GSection 80HSection 80J

depreciation of earlier years. In Orient Paper Mills Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income Tax (1986) 158 I.T.R. 695 the Calcutta High Court has taken the view that deductions under Section 80-I cannot exceed gross total income and if gross total income found is ’Nil’ or a net loss the assessee is not entitled to deduction under Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S JINDAL STEEL THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

Appeals are hereby dismissed

C.A. No.-013771-013771 - 2015Supreme Court06 Dec 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

Section 260ASection 80

11 State Electricity Board for supply of electricity to the industrial consumers including the assessee. 11.1. Assessee had claimed deduction under Section 80 IA in respect of its two undertakings engaged in generation of power at Raigarh (Chhattisgarh). Power produced in the captive power plants was primarily for use by the respondent assessee in its steel plants. Availability of electricity

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

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)

11. It is pointed out that Section 17(5)(c) carves out an exception only for works contracts, assuming that this is the only category of service where there is no breakage in the chain of taxable supplies. It is submitted that while Section 17(5)(c) allows ITC on works contracts for contractors, ITC has been blocked for other

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

M/S LIBERTY INDIA vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,KARNAL

C.A. No.-005891-005891 - 2009Supreme Court31 Aug 2009
Section 260ASection 80

6) and (7) cover the business of a ship, hotel etc. Thus, for all practical purposes, according to the learned counsel, the section has used the words “eligible business” and “industrial undertaking” interchangeably and, therefore, there is no material difference between Section 80-I and Section 80-IB as in both cases profits have to be derived from an industrial

M/S KARNATAKA SMALL S.INDT.DEV.COR.LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,BANGALORE

C.A. No.-000823-000823 - 2000Supreme Court03 Dec 2002
For Respondent: Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore
Section 115Section 115JSection 115J(1)Section 256(1)Section 28Section 32Section 72Section 73Section 74Section 74A

section 43(6) of the 1961 Act which defines ’written down value’ in so far as it is relevant: (a) in the case of assets acquired in the previous year, the actual cost to the assessee; (b) in the case of assets acquired before the previous year, the actual cost to the assessee less all depreciation actually allowed

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. A.R. ENTERPRISES

C.A. No.-002688-002688 - 2006Supreme Court14 Jan 2013
Section 132Section 158BSection 260A

depreciation under sub- section (2) of section 32; (b) of a firm, or its partners, the method of computation of undisclosed income and its allocation to the partners shall be in accordance with the method adopted for determining the as- 21 Page 22 JUDGMENT sessed income or returned income for each of the previous years falling within the block period

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)

depreciable assets costing less than Rs. 5,000/- which did not enter the block of assets during the assessment years in question (when Section 41(2) stood deleted). Effect of introducing Finance (No. 2) Act, 1995 w.e.f. 1.4.1996: 10. At the outset, it may be noted that, by the above Finance Act, the first proviso to Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I vs. M/S RELIANCE ENERGY LTD (FORMERLY BSES LTD.) THROUGH ITS M.D

The Appeal is dismissed qua the issue of the extent of deduction under

C.A. No.-001327-001327 - 2021Supreme Court28 Apr 2021

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO

Section 80Section 80A

depreciation. 2 | P a g e The Assessing Officer considered the revised claim of the Assessee under Section 80-IA and determined the amount eligible for deduction under Section 80-IA at Rs. 492,78,60,973/- against the Assessee’s claim of Rs. 546,26,01,224/-. However, the Assessing Officer stated in the assessment order that the actual

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)

Depreciation is not there in Section 36(1)(iii). That is why the legislature has used the words "unless the context otherwise requires". Hence, Explanation 8 has no relevancy to Section 36(1)(iii). It has relevancy to the aforementioned enumerated sections. Therefore, in our view Explanation 8 has no application to the facts of the present case. http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

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

Section 80H

depreciation, Section 32AB gives deductions in respect of certain investment allowance. After providing for admissible deductions to an assessee, income under this head is ascertained. In a similar way, as noted above, income under the other heads is worked out. If a particular assessee has income under more than one heads, in the income tax returns, the said assessee would

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS vs. M/S. LUCAS T.V.S. LTD. PADI CHENNAI

The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent

C.A. No.-005950-005952 - 2007Supreme Court14 Dec 2007
For Respondent: M/s Lucas T.V.S. Ltd. Padi Chennai
Section 32ASection 33Section 43A(1)

6) of section 32AB. (2) The ship or aircraft or machinery or plant referred to in sub-section (1) shall be the following, namely :- (a) A new ship or new aircraft acquired after the 31st day of March, 1976, by an assessee engaged in the business of operation of ships or aircraft; (b) Any new machinery or plant installed after