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.

24 results for “depreciation”+ Short Term Capital Gainsclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,491Delhi959Chennai380Bangalore343Kolkata252Ahmedabad177Jaipur128Hyderabad89Chandigarh73Karnataka55Raipur53Pune48Indore46Cochin31Visakhapatnam24SC24Surat23Lucknow20Rajkot18Kerala11Nagpur11Guwahati8Calcutta6Panaji6Jodhpur5Telangana5Cuttack4Amritsar3Dehradun3Ranchi2Punjab & Haryana2Rajasthan2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1Jabalpur1Patna1Gauhati1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Allahabad1

Key Topics

Section 41(2)15Depreciation12Deduction10Section 328Section 17(5)(d)7Section 115J7Section 807Addition to Income6Section 37(1)5Section 260A

VATSALA SHENOY vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

Short-term Capital gain on transfer of movable (depreciable asset) u/s. 50 4.4% of Rs.12,73,55,600 Rs. 56,03,646 Less

NAVIN JINDAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

C.A. No.-000634-000634 - 2006Supreme Court11 Jan 2010
Section 48(2)

term capital loss due to depreciation in the value of 1500 original share of JISCO as a result of right issue of PCDs after adjusting the profit realized on a/c of discussed above Less : Deduction u/s 48(2): On Rs.15000/- @ 100% On Rs.2303200/- @ 60% (B) Net Income under the head “capital gains

Showing 1–20 of 24 · Page 1 of 2

5
Section 41(1)4
Business Income2

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)

short term capital gains on the ground that the assets stood depreciated at 100% under the proviso to Section 32(1)(ii) and hence

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)

short. In the appeal, assessee contended that non-compete fee should be treated as an allowable revenue expenditure. However, in the course of the appellate proceedings, an alternative ground was put forth by the assessee that if the amount of non-compete fee paid to L&T was treated as capital expenditure, then the benefit of depreciation allowance should

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

terms of section 32 of the Act read with the Rules in the Appendix. [1030 C-E] 2.(a). The expressions used in a taxing statute would ordinarily be understood in the sense in which it is harmonious with the object of the statute to effectuate the legislative animation. [1026 G] 2(b). The Income

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. 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)

gains of business under Sections 28 to 43D of the IT Act. In reply, the Department contended before us that the IT Act is a separate code by itself; that the taxable total income has to be computed strictly in terms of the provisions of the IT Act; that the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (“RBI Act” for short

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

short) for its opinion and answered in affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. This question has been answered differently by various High Courts one in favour of the assessee and the other in favour of the Revenue. Section 32 has since been amended by the Taxation Laws (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1986, with effect from

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

short document containing two clauses, which are set out as follows: “1. In consideration of the sum of Rs. 6,00,00,000 (Rupees Six crores only) paid by SWC to Mr. Gupta as an advance against the aforesaid non-competition fee of Rs. 6,60,00,000 (the receipt whereof, Mr. Gupta hereby admits and acknowledges), Mr. Gupta hereby

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)

short, a registered person will not be entitled to ITC on the tax component of the cost of capital goods and plant and machinery if he claims depreciation on the said tax component under the Income Tax Act. The object is that a registered person does not take advantage of both depreciation and ITC. 29. Now we come

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

terms of Section 35A and 35AB of the Act? iii) Whether the Tribunal had erred in directing the Assessing Officer 1 Page 2 JUDGMENT to capitalize the value of trademarks, copyright and technical know-how by treating the same as plant and machinery and grant depreciation therein? 3. In its conclusion, the High Court answered the first two questions

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)

short, "1961 Act’) the assessee was not entitled to claim deduction for interest on borrowings, particularly, when the machines were not put to use during the assessment year under consideration. According to the Department, provisions of Section 36(1)(iii) of the 1961 Act were required to be harmoniously construed along with the provisions of Explanation 8 to Section

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

short “the Tribunal”). The Tribunal agreed with the assessee on both the counts. On the question of claim for depreciation on normal rate, the following observations by the Tribunal are very significant: “…In the present case the business of the assessee-appellant is leasing and hiring of vehicles and other machinery. It is definitely not a hire purchase, as seen

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)

short, ‘ACIT’) (Investigation), Circle 7(1), New Delhi to each of the assessees under Section 148 of the Act, in respect of Assessment Years 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90 (Assessment Years under consideration). An order was passed on 12th July, 1990 by ACIT (Investigation), Circle 13(1), New Delhi in respect of M/s Rattan Gupta & Co. under section

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX, DEHRADUN vs. M/S ENRON OIL & GAS INDIA LTD

C.A. No.-005433-005433 - 2008Supreme Court02 Sept 2008

Bench: Cit(A), Who After Analyzing The Psc Held That Each Co-Venturer In This Case Had Made Contribution At A Certain Rate Whereas The Expenditure Incurred Out Of The Said Contribution Stood Converted On The Basis Of The Previous 2

Section 115JSection 293ASection 42(1)

gains of any business consisting of prospecting, extraction or production of mineral oil, an assessee would be entitled to claim deduction in respect of abovementioned three items of expenditure in lieu of or in addition to the allowances admissible under the 1961 Act. Further, such allowances shall be computed and made in the manner specified in the agreement. In short

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

capital or revenue receipt. This additional issue has been raised in Civil Appeal No.9917 of 2017 (Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Godawari Power and Ispat Pvt. Ltd.) and also in Civil Appeal No.8983 of 2017 (Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Chhattisgarh Vs. M/s Godawari Power and Ispat Pvt. Ltd.) RECOMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION UNDER 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

terms of borrowings repayable after the end of the relevant accounting year. Similar treatment was given to the foreign exchange loans taken for general purposes, used partly in revenue account and partly in capital account. Thus, the Assessee’s claim for foreign exchange loss/increased liability on revaluation of these foreign exchange loans at the end of the accounting year under

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

short "the Act") merely on the ground that the total income of the assessee was assessed at a minus figure/loss. Tribunal had allowed the assessee’s appeal remitting the penalty imposed by the assessing officer under Section 271(1)(c) relating to the assessment year 1996-97, relying upon the decision of the Punjab High Court in CIT v. Prithipal

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

capital expenditure on scientific research and development which is fully deductible under section 35 of the 1961 Act would be assessed to tax under this section. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that in the profit & loss account the assessee has debited depreciation at the rates prescribed by the Income-tax Rules, 1962. This has been the consistent

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

termed as a commercial activity. This was the principal idea in omitting Section13(1)(bb) as it was considered as restrictive for carrying out such activities. It was argued that, substitution of the definition of “charitable purpose” in Section 2(15) by the Finance Act, 2008 has not changed the law. The words “in relation to any trade, commerce