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.

6 results for “depreciation”+ Section 253clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai609Delhi518Bangalore116Chennai103Kolkata75Chandigarh42Jaipur35Ahmedabad31Pune30Lucknow20Hyderabad17Cuttack16Amritsar15Surat14Rajkot14Guwahati14Indore13Cochin12Raipur8Panaji7SC6Jodhpur6Telangana6Karnataka5Ranchi5Varanasi4Allahabad4Nagpur3Dehradun2Patna1

Key Topics

Section 803Business Income3Deduction3Section 1482Section 80I2Section 42Section 43B2

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Dr. T.Ravi Kumar,

ITTA/102/2012HC Telangana24 Jul 2013

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 10Th April, 2024. Appearance: Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjay Bhowmick, Advocate Ms. Swapna Das, Advocate … For The Appellant. Ms. Smita Das De, Advocate … For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Advocate Assisted By Sri Sanjay Bhowmick, Learned Counsel For The Appellant/Assessee & Ms. Smita Das De, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For The Respondent. 2. The Assessment Years Involved In The Present Appeal Are Assessment Year 1999-2000 & Assessment Year 2000-01. By Order Dated 16.08.2012, This Appeal Was Admitted On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law :-

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 24(1)(i)Section 32Section 43B

253 ITR 303, CIT Vs. Refrigeration and Allied Industries Limited 113 TAXMAN 103 (Del) and CIT Vs. M/s. G.N. Agrawal (1994) 75 ΤΑΧΜΑΝ 30 (Bom). So, in view of all aforesaid facts and case laws relied by the appellant; I am of the view that Assessing Officer was not correct in denying 50% depreciation to the appellant he is directed

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri P.Sarveswara Rao

Appeals are partly allowed, in view of the

ITTA/434/2005HC Telangana14 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 221Section 4

depreciation and not the grant of deduction in respect of Sales-tax collections which had not been paid in accordance with the provisions of sec.43-B of the IT Act. (e) No objection on the issue whether the assessee‟s industrial undertaking was set up in a backward area, notified by the Central Govt. for the purpose of benefit under provisions

The Commissioner of Income Tax -V, vs. M/S Secunderabad Club

ITTA/422/2006HC Telangana27 Aug 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

Section 148Section 80Section 80ASection 80I

253 ITR396 (Mad.) and in the case of CIT vs Menon Impex (P) Ltd. (2003) 259 ITR 403 (Mad.) and by Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs Cochin Refineries Ltd. (1982) 135 ITR 278 (Ker) that the used of the term "derived from" in the relevant provision of the Act indicates the restricted meaning to cover only

M/s.V.R.Farms Pvt Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are dismissed

ITTA/272/2008HC Telangana28 Nov 2025

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

253 ITR 791 (Ker) and Nicco Corporation Ltd v. CIT: 272 ITR 58 (Cal). 15. Lastly, it was argued that hardship or inequity is no ground for not charging interest under sections 234B and 234C before allowing MAT credit. It was contended that it is a well established principle that equity has no place in tax laws. It was therefore

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

section 5(1)(xxi) as exemption was claimed as a new and separate unit set up after the commencement of the Act. The Madras High ITA 257/2012 Page 9 of 18 Court at page 824 observes : “Unless a factory is erected and the plant and machinery installed therein, it cannot be said to have been set up. The resolutions

Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajahmundry vs. M/s. Kakinada Coop. Town Bank LTd., Kakinada

ITTA/485/2012HC Telangana15 Nov 2012

Bench: The Court Is: “Whether, The Shares Invested Through A Portfolio Management

Section 271(1)(c)Section 88E

depreciating value”, and that the PMS is supposed to “provide the skill and expertise to steer through the complex volatile and dynamic conditions of the market”. The order may be extracted in relevant part: “10. Under PMS a person deposits the money under the contract for a period normally not less one year. After depositing the money the investment