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.

5 results for “depreciation”+ Section 10B(4)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi470Mumbai433Bangalore321Chennai169Kolkata126Pune85Ahmedabad79Hyderabad54Jaipur32Karnataka28Chandigarh19Lucknow17Cochin13Indore9Surat9Guwahati8Rajkot7Ranchi6Agra5Patna5Telangana5Visakhapatnam4Dehradun3Nagpur3Calcutta3Raipur2Cuttack2Varanasi2Orissa1Jodhpur1SC1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 10B10Section 115J8Section 2607Deduction4Depreciation4Section 14A2Set Off of Losses2

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s Matrix Power Pvt Ltd.,

ITTA/386/2013HC Telangana03 Sept 2013
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 260A

4) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 10A or section 10AA or section 10B or section 10BA or in any provisions of this Chapter under the heading ―C – Deductions in respect of certain incomes‖, where, in the case of an assessee, any amount of profits and gains of an undertaking or unit or enterprise or eligible business

The commissioner of Income Tax-IV, Hyderabad vs. M/s. Lanco Infratech Ltd.,

In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal

ITTA/436/2014HC Telangana01 Jul 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 10B
Section 260
Section 35

depreciation of non 10B unit cannot be set off against the income of the 4 10B unit without taking into consideration the amendment to section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - II vs. M/s. E.C.I. Engineering AND Construction Co. Ltd.,

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITTA/50/2013HC Telangana21 Jun 2013
Section 10BSection 10B(1)Section 260

depreciation without taking into consideration the amendment to Section 10B(1) w.e.f. 01.04.2001 and recorded a perverse finding.” 3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the revenue fairly submitted that the substantial question of law has been answered against the revenue by the Supreme Court in ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Vs. YOKOGAWA INDIA

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Smt.Anitha Sanghi

ITTA/97/2010HC Telangana21 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 14ASection 260

4 same is clarificatory in nature in view of the consistent stands taken by the department? (iii) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the estimated expenditure cannot be treated as book profit under Section 115JA of the Act despite Explanation (f) to Section 115JA of the Act? (iv) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the provision

The Commissioner of Income Tax- I vs. M/s. Avon Organics Limited

ITTA/257/2012HC Telangana17 Jul 2012

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Section 10B

10B, of the Income Tax Act (“Act”, for short), for a period commencing from 1.4.2004 to 31.5.2004, contending that it had obtained approval as a 100% Export Oriented Unit under STPI scheme and had commenced operations from 1.4.2004. The Assessing Officer as well as the Tribunal have held that the appellant assessee had commenced its operations only from