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.

45 results for “depreciation”+ Section 31clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,812Delhi2,456Bangalore1,039Chennai844Kolkata561Ahmedabad429Jaipur225Hyderabad210Raipur138Pune126Chandigarh112Karnataka95Indore87Amritsar65Lucknow52Visakhapatnam51Cochin49Surat49SC45Rajkot43Ranchi42Cuttack26Guwahati26Telangana24Jodhpur23Nagpur20Kerala19Panaji10Dehradun7Allahabad7Agra4Calcutta4Jabalpur3Rajasthan2Patna2Punjab & Haryana1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Tripura1Varanasi1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1Gauhati1D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1

Key Topics

Section 8024Deduction19Depreciation16Section 41(2)15Section 14311Addition to Income11Section 14810Section 379Section 143(2)9Section 260A

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

31, 1965, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes which provides that where the required particulars have not been furnished by the assessee and no claim for depreciation has been made in the return, the Income-tax Officer should estimate the income without allowing depreciation allowance. Further, it was held that from the language of section

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

C.A. No.-000238-000238 - 2012

Showing 1–20 of 45 · Page 1 of 3

7
Section 17(5)(d)7
Reassessment6
Supreme Court
09 Oct 2017

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

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

Section 32. Even in the absence of Rule 5-AA return of income in the form prescribed itself requires particulars to be furnished if the assessee claims depreciation. These particulars are required to be furnished in 11 great detail. There is a circular of the Board dated 31

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: as to whether such rights are rights in rem or rights in personam. While generally patents, copyrights and trade marks confer rights in rem, other categories like 31 technical know-how, licences or franchises generally confer rights in personam. Even under The Patents Act, 1970, The Copyrights Act, 1957 and The Trade Marks Act, 1999, certain rights

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,SIMLA vs. M/S GREEN WORLD CORPORATION

Appeals are disposed of with the aforementioned directions

C.A. No.-003312-003312 - 2009Supreme Court06 May 2009
Section 133Section 133ASection 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 80I

depreciation was not causing any prejudice to the interest of Revenue at least in the year under consideration and the apprehension of the learned CIT about such prejudice which may be caused to the Revenue in the subsequent years was based on 29 assumptions and surmises depending on ultimate eventualities like the one happened in the present case when

BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX

C.A. No.-002415-002415 - 2004Supreme Court05 Oct 2005
For Respondent: Commissioner of Income Tax,West Bengal, Kolkata & Anr
Section 28Section 30Section 32ASection 33Section 33ASection 37

Sections 31 and 32 deal with the amounts which are allowable in respect of repairs and insurance of machinery, plant and furniture http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9 used for the purposes of the business or profession and in respect of depreciation

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

depreciation on the assets used for power generation. This additional issue has been raised by the revenue in Civil Appeal No.13771 of 2015 (Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Jindal Steel and Power Ltd.). Revenue has also raised the issue of expenditure in Civil Appeal No.7425 of 2019 (Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Reliance Industries Ltd.). The expenditure claimed

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)

depreciated at 100% under the proviso to Section 32(1)(ii) and hence did not form part of the block of assets. 12. For reasons given hereinabove, we are of the view that bottles and crates purchased prior to 31.3.1995 did not form part of the block of assets, hence, profits on sale of such assets were not taxable

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS PVT.LTD

The appeal is allowed without

C.A. No.-002830-002830 - 2007Supreme Court23 May 2007
For Respondent: Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd
Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

depreciation allowance or any other allow- ance under this Act has been computed. 148. Issue of notice where income has escaped assessment.\027(1) Before making the assessment, reassessment or recomputation under section 147, the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice containing all or any of the requirements which may be included in a notice under

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

Section 31 of the Income Tax Act. It, therefore, held that the expenditure was a capital expenditure on which only depreciation

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

31. Coming to the question of liability of a common carrier for loss of or damage to goods, the position of law has to be taken as fairly well settled that the liability of a carrier in India, as in England, is more extensive and the liability is that of an insurer. The absolute liability of the carrier is subject

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)

depreciation [Sections 32 and 43(1)], and also as regards capital assets for scientific research [Section 35(1)(iv)] and also regarding patent rights or copyrights [Section 35A]. 31

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX-I,NEW DELHI vs. VATIKA TOWNSHIP P.LTD

Appeals of the assessees are allowed deleting the surcharge levied by the

C.A. No.-008750-008750 - 2014Supreme Court15 Sept 2014
Section 113Section 132Section 154Section 158B

depreciation under sub-section (2) of section 32 shall not be set off against the undisclosed income determined in the block assessment under this Chapter, but may be carried forward for being set off in the regular assessments. Civil Appeal No.________ of 2014 & connected matters Page 17 of 57 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 540 of 2009) Page

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

Section 32 (1) of the Act. Therefore, the assessee fulfills even the requirements for a claim of a higher rate of depreciation, and hence is entitled to the same. 31

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR vs. MCDOWELL & CO. LTD

The appeal is disposed of

C.A. No.-002939-002939 - 2006Supreme Court08 May 2009

Bench: The High Court Are As Follows: (1) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The I.T.A.T. Was Justified In Holding That The Unpaid Amount Of Bottling Fee Has, On Furnishing Of The Bank Guarantee, To Be Treated As Actual Payment & Accordingly Allowing The Deduction In Respect Of The Same Under Section 43B Of The Act, Even Though The Sum Has Not Been Actually Paid Before The Due Date Of Filing The Return Under Section 139(1) Of The Act. (2) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The I.T.A.T. Was Justified In Allowing The Depreciation On Research & Development Assets Which Related To The Closed Business Of Fast Food Division/Unit Of The Assessee-Company As Such Not Used During The Previous Year? (3) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The I.T.A.T. Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.2,77,887/- 2

Section 139(1)Section 31Section 35(1)(iv)Section 37Section 43B

31, obviously relatable to current repairs. The assessee’s claim on the other hand is relatable to Section 37 of the Act. Strong reliance is placed on a decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ramaraju Surgical Cotton Mills ((2007)(294) ITR 328 (SC)). It is fairly accepted by learned counsel for the assessee that nomenclature

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)

31 (1957) SCC OnLine SC 12 Civil Appeal No.2948 of 2023 etc. Page 26 of 91 He invited our attention to Section 16(3) of the CGST Act, which bars the claim of depreciation

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

RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD JAIPUR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (ASSESSMENT)

In the result, we allow the appeal, set aside the

C.A. No.-008590-008590 - 2010Supreme Court19 Mar 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI

Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 154Section 264Section 32(2)Section 617

31:00 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified 2 The assessee is a Government Company as defined under Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956. The assessee filed return on 30.12.1991 for the assessment year 1991-92 showing a loss amounting to Rs. (-)427,39,32,972/-. Due to a bonafide mistake the assessee claimed 100% depreciation

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

depreciation on plant) as has been done by the Tribunal, the Assessee would be quite satisfied. Unfortunately, the alternative aspect of the Assessee’s case was not looked into by the High Court. 29. Therefore, now the question to be answered is whether the Assessee is entitled to any benefit under Section 32 of the Act read with Section

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE

The appeal is allowed

C.A. No.-009720-009720 - 2014Supreme Court25 Sept 2023

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

Section 10(15)Section 148Section 245CSection 245C(1)Section 271Section 32Section 80M

depreciation on the investments portfolio of the bank classified as permanent investments. 2.4. When matters stood thus, the concluded assessments for earlier assessment years were reopened by issuance of notices under Section 148 of the Act. The appellant filed returns under protest with respect to the said assessment years. 2.5. Before the Settlement Commission, the Respondents-Revenue raised a preliminary

SUNDARESH BHATT vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS

C.A. No.-007667 - 2021Supreme Court26 Aug 2022

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 13(1)(a)Section 14(4)Section 33(2)Section 33(5)Section 60(5)Section 62(1)

31. In the Fifth Report of the Insolvency Law Committee, May, 2022 published by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India29, while examining whether the role of the SCC ought to be reviewed and suitable provisions be enacted in the IBC to give its statutory recognition, the Committee observed that the BLRC has designed the CIRP to be driven