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 288clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai462Delhi451Bangalore162Chennai153Kolkata73Jaipur71Ahmedabad41Hyderabad25Pune24Lucknow22Chandigarh22Cuttack19Indore15Amritsar14Karnataka12Surat8Visakhapatnam6Telangana6Rajkot5Guwahati5Raipur5Agra4Ranchi4SC3Patna3Jabalpur3Kerala2Calcutta2Varanasi2Jodhpur2Cochin1Panaji1Nagpur1

Key Topics

Section 8019Section 2603Section 80H3Section 260A2Section 312Section 80I2Addition to Income2

INCOME TAX BANGALORE vs. SHALINI BHUPAL

Appeal is dismissed

ITTA/38/2000HC Telangana20 Jun 2013
Section 260Section 80Section 80HSection 80ISection 80J

depreciation in respect of such machi-nery or plant has been allowed or is allowable under the provisions of this Act in computing the total income of any person for any period prior to the date of the installation of the machinery or plant by the assessee. Explanation 2.—Where in the case of an industrial undertaking, any machinery

Commissioner of Inccome Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue

ITTA/95/2011
HC Telangana
27 Apr 2011

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 16Th March, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Smarajit Roychowdhury, Adv. ...For The Appellant. Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjoy Bhowmick, Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. ...For The Respondent. The Court : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’ For Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30Th November, 2010 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Kolkata (The Tribunal) In Ita No.368 & 369/Kol/2010 Years 2005- 06 & 2006-07. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration:

Section 2(18)(b)Section 2(22)(e)Section 260ASection 31

288/- for assessment year 2006-07 as ‘deemed dividend’ by misinterpreting the provisions contained in Section 2(18)(b)(B)(c) and Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act ? We have heard Mr. Smarajit Roychowdhury, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr. J. P. Khaitan, learner Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Sanjoy Bhowmick and Ms. Swapna

Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), vs. M/s Country Club Inda Limited

ITTA/667/2014HC Telangana29 Jan 2015
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260A

depreciation or any other indirect costs in its accounts. Further, the Assessee had also not showed any source of funds. The AO noted that the equipment stated to have been supplied by the Assessee to Reliance was purchased from other group companies, namely, Nortel Canada and Nortel Ireland and were supplied to Reliance at almost half the price

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III, vs. M/S. SAVIJANA SEA FOODS PVT. LTD.,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITTA/55/2010HC Telangana20 Dec 2024

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

Section 260

depreciation, reserves, etc., a part of it should in all fairness go to the employees.” 30. In the said case the Supreme Court was considering whether payment for ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 17 of 36 the extra services rendered by an employee could be allowed as business expenditure. It was held that for the purposes of allowing commercial

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Kokivenkateswara Reddy AND others,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITTA/210/2003HC Telangana21 Jun 2011

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

Section 260

depreciation, reserves, etc., a part of it should in all fairness go to the employees.” 30. In the said case the Supreme Court was considering whether payment for ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 17 of 36 the extra services rendered by an employee could be allowed as business expenditure. It was held that for the purposes of allowing commercial

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