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.

18 results for “depreciation”+ Section 73clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,642Delhi1,445Bangalore496Chennai399Kolkata313Ahmedabad231Hyderabad130Jaipur101Chandigarh83Pune70Raipur61Indore54Surat43Visakhapatnam41Lucknow40Amritsar35Cochin30Karnataka23Ranchi21Rajkot19Cuttack19SC18Nagpur16Jodhpur15Telangana13Guwahati10Dehradun8Calcutta7Patna3Varanasi3Allahabad3Panaji2Agra2Jabalpur1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1S. B. SINHA MARKANDEY KATJU1

Key Topics

Section 8017Section 17(5)(d)7Section 115J7Depreciation7Section 326Deduction6Section 115J(1)4Section 80A4Section 256(1)3Section 43B

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

section 73, the allowance or part of the allowance to which effect has not been given, as the case may be, shall be added to the amount of the allowance for depreciation

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

C.A. No.-000823-000823 - 2000Supreme Court03 Dec 2002
3
Addition to Income3
Disallowance2
For Respondent: Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore
Section 115Section 115JSection 115J(1)Section 256(1)Section 28Section 32Section 72Section 73Section 74Section 74A

depreciation allowance under section 32, investment allowance under section 32-A, losses under sections 72, 72A, 73, 74 and permissible

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

73 or Section 74 or sub-section (3) of Section 74-A or sub- section (3) of Section 80-J.\024 A new Chapter XII-B containing section 115J was inserted by the Finance Act, 1987 with effect from Ist April, 1988. This new section made provisions for levy of minimum tax on book profits of certain companies. The scope

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. M/S. HOOGHLY MILLS CO. LTD

The appeal is allowed

C.A. No.-005149-005149 - 2006Supreme Court22 Nov 2006
For Respondent: M/s. Hoogly Mills Co. Ltd
Section 32Section 4(1)

depreciation on the sum under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act. The CIT (Appeal) as well as the tribunal allowed the assessee’s claim and their orders were upheld by the High Court by the impugned judgment. Learned counsel for the appellant contended in this appeal that the expenditure on the taking over the gratuity liability of the employees

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

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

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 and in the circumstances of the case, the I.T.A.T. was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.2,77,887/- 2 being made treating the expenditure incurred in purchase

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 under the head “it is more beneficial to it”. He submitted that in the modern era, theatre building and hotel building are integral part of operation for carrying out such business and, therefore, such building should be considered as a “plant”. Ultimately, in paragraph 67, this Court held thus: “67. In the result, it is held that the building

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

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)

73,526/-. Penalties were imposed under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act 1994. 7 The respondent assailed the order of adjudication before the Tribunal. By its judgment dated 05 April 2019, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the respondent. The Tribunal observed that the SKID equipment is installed by the respondent at the customers’ site

VATSALA SHENOY vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

C.A. No.-001234-001234 - 2012Supreme Court18 Oct 2016
Section 260Section 583(4)(a)

Section 583(4)(a) thereof. The said petition was registered as Company Petition No. 1 of 1988. Significantly, though the firm stood dissolved on December 06, 1987, and thereafter Company Petition No. 1 of 1988 for the winding up proceedings after dissolution was filed in the High Court, the business of the partnership firm continued because of the interim order

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

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)

73,402 5. 05.04.2019 EPCG   License   No. 5230006881   dated 31.03.2010 Rs. 6,64,646 3 6. 07.04.2019 EPCG   License   No. 5L32206936   dated 20.04.2010 Rs. 12,04,09,501 5 On   25.04.2019,   the   NCLT   passed   an   order   commencing liquidation against the Corporate Debtor under Section 33(2) of the IBC. Vide the said order, the NCLT declared that the earlier moratorium

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

Section. He contended that, in the case of the present appellant, the giving effect order made by the CIT (Appeals) had not been fully worked out by the Assessing Officer as income under the four heads i.e. a) disallowance of bad debts to the extent of Rs. 68,02,046.00; b) income from house property to the.extent

THE INDIAN TUBE COMPANY LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

C.A. No.-001254-001254 - 1976Supreme Court14 Jan 1992
For Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CALCUTTA
Section 18Section 256(1)Section 261

73 I.T.R. 53 this Court was concerned whether appropriation amounted to reserve or provision. Dealing with the question of payment of bonus to the workmen and appropriation thereof on that account, this Court held that the distinction between a provision and a reserve was in commercial accountancy fairly well known. Provision were made against anticipatory losses and contingencies were charged

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S TRANVANCORE TITANIUM PRODUCTS LTD

C.A. No.-003825-003825 - 1999Supreme Court07 Dec 2000
For Respondent: M/S. TRANVANCORE TITANIUM PRODUCTS LTD
Section 18Section 256(1)

73 ITR 53) it was held in Vazir Sultan’s case (supra): "In other words the broad distinction between the two is that whereas a provision is a charge against the profits to be taken into account against gross receipts in the p & l http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5 account, a reserve is an appropriation

2TATE BANK OF PATIALA, PATIALA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA

The appeals are allowed

C.A. No.-004270-004273 - 1996Supreme Court15 Mar 1996
For Respondent: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,PATIALA

section 2(8) of the Act statutory deduction is defined to mean an amount equal to ten per cent of the capital Of the company as computed in accordarce with the provisions of the Second Schedule. Rule 1 of the Second Schedule mandates that the capital of the company shall be the aggregate of the amounts taking within its told