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.

19 results for “depreciation”+ Section 65(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,723Delhi1,456Bangalore595Chennai484Kolkata319Ahmedabad233Hyderabad116Jaipur104Chandigarh97Pune92Raipur76Indore55Amritsar48Karnataka45Lucknow38Ranchi35Rajkot32Visakhapatnam31Cochin29Surat26SC19Guwahati18Jodhpur16Nagpur13Telangana12Cuttack6Calcutta5Allahabad5Varanasi4Rajasthan3Patna3Punjab & Haryana3Panaji2Dehradun2Agra2Orissa1Jabalpur1Kerala1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 41(2)10Section 17(5)(d)7Depreciation6Section 325Section 804Section 143(2)4Section 271(1)(c)4Section 1473Section 1483Deduction

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

65,14,76,430/- 2011-12 Corporate Tax Assessment u/s 143(3) 2,11,61,29,711/- 2,11,61,29,411/- Thereafter, it went on to state:- "It is also to be noted that earlier refund was withheld vide notesheet dated 23.07.2018 after due approval due to non-availability of proceeding of return facility in ITBA

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

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA

3
Addition to Income3
Reopening of Assessment2
Bench:
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

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

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

Section 271(1)(c)(iii)? ii. What is meant by the term "total income" in Explanation 4(a)? Both these questions are fully answered by this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City v. Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd., 40 ITR 142 (SC). Under the Finance Act, 1951, a provision was enacted to discourage the declaration

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)

1 “Tribunal” 2 “Adjudicating Authority” Digitally signed by ARJUN BISHT Date: 2020.08.28 20:41:19 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified 2 equipment to its customers under Section 65(105)(zzzzj) of the Finance Act, 1994. This appeal rests on the interpretation and applicability of the provisions of Section 65(105)(zzzzj) of the Finance Act, 1994. 2 The respondent

M/S. TECHNO SHARES & STOCKS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV

C.A. No.-007780-007781 - 2010Supreme Court09 Sept 2010
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)(ii)

65,000/-. The claim of depreciation of the assessee was based on Section 32(1)(ii) which stood inserted by Finance

M/S.SIV INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. COMMNR.OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS

C.A. No.-001787-001787 - 1998Supreme Court10 Mar 2000
For Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS
Section 12Section 14Section 3Section 3(1)

65 of 1951), and the rules made under that Act." Under the relevant import policy the 100% Export Oriented Unit Scheme (EOU) envisages an industrial unit offering for export its entire production, excluding rejects or items otherwise specifically permitted to be supplied to the Domestic Tariff Area. Industrial units approved by the Board of Approvals (BOA) set up for this

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

65. Learned counsel also submitted that the assessee carries on R&D work which enables educational institutions with Information and Communication Technology infrastructure for making education reach the public at large solely for charitable purpose and further reliance was placed upon ICAI Accounting Research Foundation v. DGIT(E)70, Bureau of Indian Standards v. DGIT(E)71 and GS1 India

M/S. MANGALAM PUBLICATIONS, KOTTAYAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM

C.A. No.-008580-008582 - 2011Supreme Court23 Jan 2024

Bench: This Court & On Leave Being Granted, Civil Appeals Have Been Registered. 3.

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 260A

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in Sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year). 32 28.4. Thus, Section 147 as it stood at the relevant point of time provides that if the assessing officer has reason to believe that any income

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. UNITED PROVINCES ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO

In the result, appeal is allowed

C.A. No.-006325-006325 - 1995Supreme Court17 Apr 2000
For Respondent: UNITED PROVINCES ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY
Section 256(1)Section 32(1)Section 41(2)Section 6Section 7A

1) and (4) apparently contemplate receipt of amount as stated therein to be taxed in the year in which it is received and such recovery may be in one or more subsequent years. Learned counsel further submitted that for the calculation of the deemed profit, it is necessary to know both the sale consideration of each asset as well

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(CENTRAL) vs. M/S. GWALIOR RAYON SILK MFG.(WVG.)CO.LTD

The appeal is partly allowed

C.A. No.-002916-002916 - 1980Supreme Court29 Apr 1992
For Respondent: GWALIOR RAYON SILK MANUFACTURING CO. LTD
Section 256(1)Section 256(2)Section 32

1. The roads laid within the factory premises as links or providing approach to the buildings are necessary adjuncts to the factory building to carry on the business activity of the assessee would be building within the meaning of section 32 of the Act. The capital expenditure incurred thereon is admissible to depreciation of written down value

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) 2 vs. M/S MAHAGUN REALTORS (P) LTD

The appeal is allowed, in the above terms, without order on costs

C.A. No.-002716-002716 - 2022Supreme Court05 Apr 2022

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 276C

depreciation, etc., are allowed to the transferee. Therefore, unlike a winding up, there is no end to the enterprise, with the entity. The enterprise in the case of amalgamation, continues. 31. In Maruti Suzuki (supra), the scheme of amalgamation was approved on 29.01.2013 w.e.f. 01.04.2012, the same was intimated to the AO on 02.04.2013, and the notice under Section

KILLICK NIXON LTD., MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMNR. OF INCOME TAX,MUMBAI

In the result, we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High

C.A. No.-002614-002614 - 2001Supreme Court25 Nov 2002
For Respondent: DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI AND ORS
Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 87Section 90(1)Section 91Section 92

65,298.00 and determined the tax payable by the appellant at Rs. 9,35,888.00. This amount of Rs. 9,35,888.00 was paid by the appellant on 12.02.1999 upon which a final certificate under Section 92 read with Section 91 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998 and the KVSS, 1998 was issued certifying that the appellant had paid

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)

depreciation allowance” in Section 147 after the conditions for reassessment are satisfied, is only relatable to the preceding expression in clauses (a) and (b) viz., “escaped assessment”. The term “escaped assessment” includes both “non-assessment” as well as “under assessment”. Income is said to have “escaped assessment” within the meaning of this section when it has not been charged

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

1)(f) of the Constitution. No one denies that an evacuee from Pakistan has a residual right in the property that he left in Pakistan. But the real question is, can that right be considered as ownership within the meaning of Section 9 of the Act. As mentioned earlier that section seeks to bring to tax income of the property

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VI vs. VIRTUAL SOFT SYSTEMS LTD

The appeal is hereby dismissed leaving parties to bear their own cost

C.A. No.-004358-004358 - 2018Supreme Court24 Apr 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL

1,65,12,077/- and added the same to the income of the Respondent under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the IT Act’). (d) Being aggrieved with the said Assessment Order, the Respondent preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Learned CIT (Appeals), vide order dated 15.09.2005, upheld the order of the Assessing Officer

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

65 ITR 381 : (AIR 1967 SC 1435)] in applying the test of commercial expediency for determining whether an expenditure was wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of the business, reasonableness of the expenditure has to be adjudged from the point of view of the businessman and not of the Income Tax Department. It is, of course, open

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 11 (1) BANGALORE vs. M/S ACE MULTI AXES SYSTEMS LTD

Appeals are disposed of in the same terms

C.A. No.-020854-020854 - 2017Supreme Court05 Dec 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL

Section 263Section 33BSection 80

1.—For the purposes of clause (ii), any machinery or plant which was used outside India by any person other than the assessee shall not be regarded as machinery or plant previously used for any purpose, if the following conditions are fulfilled, namely :— (a) such machinery or plant was not, at any time previous to the date of the installation

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, TAMIL NADU vs. M/S. SOUTHERN STRUCTURALS LTD

C.A. No.-000180-000180 - 2003Supreme Court06 Aug 2008
Section 11ASection 4

65,833/- per wagon. The cost of each wagon worked out to Rs.15,29,724/- (6,55,833 + 8,63,891). The Railways supplied free raw material worth Rs.7 lac per wagon. The respondent paid central excise duty @ 15% ad valorem and cleared 21 wagons to their customer till 16th July 1998. It was also noticed that the respondent