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.

67 results for “depreciation”+ Section 6(1)(iii)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,317Delhi2,943Bangalore1,195Chennai1,062Ahmedabad778Kolkata720Pune403Jaipur363Hyderabad354Chandigarh264Karnataka197Raipur169Cochin169Indore152Surat142Visakhapatnam137Amritsar124Cuttack109Rajkot74Lucknow71SC67Nagpur48Guwahati45Telangana42Ranchi37Jodhpur35Agra21Panaji19Kerala18Patna16Calcutta16Allahabad13Dehradun11Varanasi7Punjab & Haryana6Rajasthan5Jabalpur4Orissa3ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 8045Deduction26Depreciation24Section 115J22Addition to Income16Section 14312Section 3212Section 10B11Section 14810Section 72

VODAFONE IDEA LTD(EARLIER KNOWN AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 26 (2)

C.A. No.-002377-002377 - 2020Supreme Court29 Apr 2020

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 143(2)Section 244ASection 92

depreciation as claimed and by taxing the interest income of Rs.1,07,85,590 as income from other sources and thus raised the demand of Rs. 1,30,83,741 under various heads and sections of taxes, surcharge and additional tax under Sections 143(1A), 234A and 234B. 4. Mr. Shah, learned counsel appearing for the assessee, has contended that

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 Court

Showing 1–20 of 67 · Page 1 of 4

10
Section 41(2)10
Exemption8
19 Dec 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA

Section 32(1)(ii)

iii) CIT Vs. Bharti Hexacom Ltd.7; (iv) Pitney Bowes India (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT8 14.2. From an analysis of the aforesaid decisions, it is evident that by expending non-compete fee, assessee had acquired an enduring benefit of an ephemeral nature. Therefore, the question which follows is whether such payment would be eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1

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

1) of section 32A, the following particulars shall be furnished in a columnar form, namely: - (i) description of assets in respect of building, indicate whether the building is taken on lease or is owned by the assessee; (ii) written down value of existing assets; (iii) actual cost of assets acquired during the previous year; (iv) capital expenditure on additions

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

CHECKMATE SERVICES P LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I

C.A. No.-002833-002833 - 2016Supreme Court12 Oct 2022

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

depreciation). Each of these deductions, has its contours, depending upon the expressions used, and the conditions that are to be met. It is therefore necessary to bear in mind that specific enumeration of deductions, dependent upon fulfilment of particular conditions, would qualify as allowable deductions: failure by the assessee to comply with those conditions, would render the claim vulnerable

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 as in sub-Paragraph (vii) above, the Appellant was assessed at a loss of Rs. 11,02,255.00 (Rs. 69,15,757.00) \026 Rs. 80,18,012.00 = - Rs. 11,02,255.00) In this manner, the carry-forward loss of Rs. 15,53,487.72 originally claimed by the appellant was reduced to Rs. 11,02,225.00. By order dated

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)

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 thus: “16. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. (4) A registered person shall not be entitled to take input tax credit in respect of any invoice or debit note for supply of goods or services or both after

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

6 forward to future years to be set off against profits and it did not in any manner affect business loss. He submits that business loss suffered by the assessee had not reduced because of the bonafide mistake committed by the appellant in calculating the depreciation. The assessee was in loss and continued to be in loss. Reduction in depreciation

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)

6 reduced by Rs. 300/- and there would be a business gain of Rs. 300/-. 8. In the light of the above illustration, learned counsel urged that when the assessee(s) borrows 100 US$ on 1.4.1999 he incurs a crystallised liability, however, the value of that liability undergoes a change by 31.3.2000 on account of the fall in the rupee

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)

1)(b) of Part – III of Schedule – VI of Companies Act, 1956 – reserve does not include any amount written off or retained by providing for depreciation, renewals, etc. or providing for any known liability. Under Part – I of Schedule – VI, ‘reserve’ can be made in respect of capital reserves, capital redemption, share premium, etc. 6. Provision cannot be used

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI vs. TULSYAN NEC LTD

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

6 (ii) the amount of income to which any of the provisions of Chapter III applies, if any such amount is credited to the profit and loss account; or (iii) the amount of loss brought forward or unabsorbed depreciation, whichever is less as per books of account. Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause, the loss shall not include depreciation

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)

6. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the factual position involved in Adani Exports\022 case (supra) was entirely different. That was a case relating to http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10 Section 143 (3) of the Act and the present case relates to Section 143(1

M/S. G.K. CHOKSI & CO. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, GUJARAT

C.A. No.-007486-007486 - 2001Supreme Court27 Nov 2007
For Respondent: Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat
Section 256(1)Section 32Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(iv)Section 34Section 9

6. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the appellant filed a Reference Application under Section 256(1) of the Act before the Tribunal to refer certain questions of law to the jurisdictional High Court for its opinion. The Tribunal referred the following question of law to the jurisdictional High Court for its opinion: "Whether, on the facts

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

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III, BANGALORE vs. M/S WIPRO LIMITED

C.A. No.-001449-001449 - 2022Supreme Court11 Jul 2022

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

Section 10BSection 139(1)Section 72

depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii-a) of the IT Act. 4.7 It is submitted that exactly the same principle applies to the interpretation of Section 10B (8) of the IT Act. Section 10B (8) enables an assessee to exclude the applicability of the deduction under Section 10B by filing a declaration to that effect before the last date

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

iii. The amount of profit shown from the Parwanoo having been holding disproportionate to the investment made, the High Court was correct in passing the impugned judgment. iv. In any event, the Assessee cannot be said to have been prejudiced in any manner whatsoever by the order of the High Court, as the appeal although was improperly filed

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

6. On a close reading of the provisions extracted hereinabove, it emerges that under Section 245H(1) if the Settlement Commission is satisfied that any assessee who makes the application for settlement 26 under Section 245C, has co-operated with the Settlement Commission in the proceedings before it and has made a full and true disclosure of its income

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

6 Page 7 JUDGMENT by itself does not establish an intent to disclose the income. The disclosure is to be made by filing the return. Even in search cases where the time for filing the return under section 139(1) has not expired, income disclosed in the books of account is not treated as undisclosed income. All that is denied

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

iii). Reliance was placed on section 43(6) which defines ’written down value’ as meaning the actual cost of the asset less deprecation actually allowed. It is submitted that therefore in computing the income for the next assessment year the assessee who had paid 30 per cent of the book profit in the preceding assessment year could claim to adjust

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