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.

13 results for “depreciation”+ Section 254(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai999Delhi664Chennai237Bangalore209Kolkata136Surat77Ahmedabad67Jaipur56Hyderabad50Raipur36Karnataka28Chandigarh27Lucknow26Pune25Indore20SC13Cochin12Guwahati9Nagpur9Rajkot8Telangana7Amritsar6Panaji5Calcutta5Cuttack3Varanasi3Kerala2Jabalpur2Ranchi2Dehradun2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Patna1

Key Topics

Section 115J8Depreciation8Section 43A7Section 37(1)5Section 254(2)5Section 804Section 36(1)(vii)4Section 271(1)(c)4Deduction4Section 65(105)(zzzzj)

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)

depreciation. Looking to the nature of the advantage 57 which the assessee obtained in a commercial sense, the expenditure appears to be revenue expenditure. * * * * * Right from inception, the building was of the ownership of the lessor. Therefore, by spending this money, the assessee did not acquire any capital asset. The only advantage which the assessee derived by spending the money

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)
3
Addition to Income3
Rectification u/s 1542
Section 36(1)(vii)
Section 37
Section 37(1)

depreciation in the value of the assets and, consequently, it is deductible under Section 37(1) of the IT Act. In this connection, appellant placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in 4 Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Woodward Governor India P. Ltd., 312 ITR 254

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.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

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

1), the same could be provided to the extent specified under section 350 of the Companies Act. A reference to section 350 of the Companies Act would show that the amount of depreciation to be deducted shall be the amount, calculated with reference to the written down http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 12 value

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

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

SREE AYYANAR SPINNING & WEAVING M.LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, the Civil Appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed with no order

C.A. No.-003246-003246 - 2008Supreme Court01 May 2008
For Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 254(2)

1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.3246 OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 10576 of 2007) SREE AYYANAR SPINNING & WEAVING M.LTD. ...APPELLANT (S) VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ...RESPONDENT(S) ORDER Leave granted. In this Civil Appeal filed by the assessee - appellant, we are required to deci de the scope of Section

OIL & NATURAL GAS CORP. LTD. TR. M.D. vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX, DEHRADUN

The appeals are allowed; the impugned orders are

C.A. No.-007223-007223 - 2008Supreme Court15 Mar 2010
Section 37(1)Section 43A

depreciation allowance on plant and machinery purchased out of such foreign exchange loans for the assessment year under consideration. 4.Being dissatisfied, both the Assessee as well as the Revenue carried the matter in further appeals to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”). The Tribunal observed that the method of accounting adopted by the Assessee right from

HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD. vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,DELHI

The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs

C.A. No.-005412-005412 - 2007Supreme Court26 Nov 2007
For Respondent: Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi
Section 154Section 254(2)Section 43A

depreciation as under section 43A actual payment was a condition precedent for availing the benefit under that section. According to the Tribunal, if actual payment was not made after fluctuation then the value of the asset cannot be increased by adding the increase on account of fluctuation. On facts, the Tribunal found that, in the http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT

MCORP GLOBAL PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD

Accordingly, the civil appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed with no order as to costs

C.A. No.-000955-000955 - 2009Supreme Court12 Feb 2009

Bench: Coming To The Facts, The Following Is The Relationship Between The Parties: - M/S Glass & Ceramic Decorators Was The Manufacturer Of Soft Drink Bottles. - Assessee Was The ‘Lessor’. - M/S Coolade Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Was The ‘Lessee’. 4. During The Relevant Assessment Year, The Assessee Carried On The Business Of Trading In Lamination Machines & Binding & Punching Machines. In Addition, It Was Also Engaged In The Leasing Business. During The Year In Question, The Assessee Had Bought 5,46,000 Soft Drink Bottles From M/S Glass & Ceramic Decorators Worth Rs. 19,54,953/-. The Bottles Were Directly Supplied To M/S Coolade Beverages Pvt. Ltd. (“M/S Coolade” For Short) In Terms Of Lease Dated 15.2.1991. Vide Assessment Order Dated 28.3.1994, The Ao Found That M/S Coolade Had Received Only 42,000 Bottles Out Of The Total Of 2

Section 254(1)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 33(4)

depreciation in respect of both the transactions amounting to Rs. 1,32,08,795 as against the claim of Rs. 1,80,30,489/-. Findings: 6. In the case of Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. CIT reported in (1967) 63 ITR 232 this Court has held that under Section 33(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 (equivalent to Section 254

WIPRO FINANCE LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed

C.A. No.-006677-006677 - 2008Supreme Court12 Apr 2022
Section 143(1)(a)Section 254Section 37Section 43A

1 (referred to in Recital A) Description of the Project The Project consists of the financing by the Company of the acquisition of plant, machinery and equipment to be used in its leasing business in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations of India and the Company’s Memorandum and Articles of Association.” The loan was obtained in foreign currency

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

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 it is established

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX vs. M/S ADANI GAS LTD

The appeal is allowed in the above terms

C.A. No.-002633 - 2020Supreme Court28 Aug 2020

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 65(105)(zzz)Section 65(105)(zzzzj)

depreciation. They are not collected as a consideration for providing a service; and under Article 366(29-A)(d), a tax on the sale or purchase of goods includes a tax on the transfer of the right to use goods for any purpose, without necessarily transferring the title. Section 65(105)(zzzzj) was introduced with the intention of capturing services