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.

15 results for “depreciation”+ Section 47clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,895Delhi1,849Bangalore748Chennai542Kolkata330Ahmedabad324Jaipur156Hyderabad153Raipur140Chandigarh139Pune84Indore75Karnataka58Surat57Cuttack51Visakhapatnam42Lucknow40Ranchi38Amritsar31Rajkot30Cochin30SC24Guwahati21Nagpur20Telangana15Allahabad12Jodhpur10Panaji9Varanasi7Kerala6Patna6Agra5Jabalpur3Dehradun3Calcutta3ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 260A9Addition to Income8Section 2607Section 44Section 13(1)(e)3Section 143(3)3Section 271(1)(c)3Section 13(2)2Section 2(31)2

Commissioenr of Income Tax vs. Dr. T. Ravi Kumar

ITTA/399/2011HC Telangana24 Jul 2013
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

section 143(3) was determined at depreciation loss of Rs. 114,47,28,440/-. The same was subsequently revised under

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

Capital Gains2
Depreciation2
Exemption2

THE PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [CENTRAL] HYDERABAD vs. M/S SREE NAGENDRA CONSTRUCTIONS, KHAMMAM

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

ITTA/490/2016HC Telangana21 Aug 2018

Bench: This

Section 10Section 260Section 260ASection 35Section 43

47,099/- made by the assessing authority even when the CBDT Instruction No.3/2010 dated 23.03.2010 refers to market losses are notional and contingent and actual losses are allowable as non-speculative only if the transaction qualifies as eligible derivative transaction under clause [d] of proviso to section 43[5] of the Act. Further, the Tribunal erred in relying upon

AP. STATE SEEDS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, HYD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, HYD.

ITTA/232/2006HC Telangana21 Dec 2022

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

For Appellant: SRl. C. P. RAMASWAMIFor Respondent: Ms. K. MAMATACHOUDARY SENIOR SC FOR
Section 1Section 115JSection 260A

47,830.00. While computing the income from business, assessing officer vide the assessment crcler dated 30.O9.1992, noted that net prolit as per the profit and loss account was Rs.33,222.O0. However, rvh le computing the tax to be levied under Section 1 1 5.J of the Act, the net profit was taken at Rs.3

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

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

47,172/- was to be added as business income of the assesse (profits from trade less the PMS charges, treated as expenses wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business), second, that penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were to be initiated and third, that the claim for rebate under Section 88E, as an alternative, was to fail since

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 5 vs. M/s Vijay Textiles Limited

The appeal is dismissed

ITTA/541/2015HC Telangana16 Feb 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 167BSection 2(31)Section 2(47)Section 260Section 3Section 4Section 67A

47) the word transfer includes relinquishment of rights?” 2. We have heard Mr.Jeevan J. Neeralgi appearing on behalf of Mr.E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel for the appellants-Revenue. 3 3. It appears that the Tribunal while dealing with the said aspects has observed thus: “16. We have perused the orders and heard the rival contentions. The question to be answered

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Margadarshi Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd.,

The appeal is dismissed

ITTA/228/2013HC Telangana10 Jul 2013
Section 143Section 148Section 260Section 40

depreciation was ordered to be charged on it. Rs.7650/- were added to the income of the assessee on account of telephone expenses, as the assessee admitted the expenditure incurred on account of telephones installed at residences. Further addition of Rs.2,00,000/- was made on account of sale of rice, as no stock was maintained by the assessee quality wise

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

depreciation. The rate of minimum tax was kept at a modest figure deeming 30 per cent of book profits as total income. This modest amount is likely to go down further with the downward revision of corporate tax rate to 35 per cent and abolition of surcharge. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 45.4 The Act also inserts a new section 115JAA

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s Pokarna Limited

The appeals are dismissed

ITTA/273/2012HC Telangana18 Feb 2025

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Section 260A

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

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

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. M/s Indur Green Power Private Limited

In the result, all the appeals fail and are hereby

ITTA/627/2015HC Telangana02 Jun 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 2(15)Section 25Section 260Section 80G(5)

Depreciation 1,05,72,696 1,10,86,334 1,26,18,427 1,39,66,450 Total Expenditure 4,81,29,896 4,75,41,722 5,01,63,902 3,88,21,912 Profit for the year 2,53,21,438 2,09,87,242 62,58,319 836236 Add Balance brought forward

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/s Padmapriya Real Estates AND Financiers

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment passed by

ITTA/478/2006HC Telangana10 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 13(1)(e)Section 13(2)Section 313

Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has also been recorded in which he denied the circumstances appears against him, plead innocence and have submitted that he was posted as Junior Engineer from April 1978 to 1979 at PNT Department, Nasik. He was working since February 1980 in Irrigation Department. But the income of the said period was not counted. His wife

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Sri N.Sai Baba Naidu

ITTA/319/2012HC Telangana06 Jan 2025

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 56Section 56(2)(iii)

depreciation in respect of all assets which are subject matter of lease with these three parties. This conduct also shows that the assessee wanted to use the assets as business assets.” The claim of the assessee was thus rejected by the Tribunal. 4. The assessee filed an application (MA 238/Del/2011) contending that the order of the Tribunal contained mistakes apart