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.

12 results for “depreciation”+ Section 63clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,623Delhi1,423Bangalore519Chennai474Kolkata281Ahmedabad277Jaipur145Hyderabad113Pune78Chandigarh70Indore62Raipur62Karnataka42Lucknow39Ranchi37Visakhapatnam34SC28Cochin24Rajkot20Surat16Amritsar14Telangana12Nagpur12Cuttack7Allahabad7Patna6Guwahati6Jodhpur6Calcutta3Agra2Punjab & Haryana2Rajasthan1Panaji1Orissa1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1Kerala1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 80I9Section 2605Section 260A4Section 804Depreciation4Addition to Income4Section 143(3)3Section 2(15)3Section 43Business Income

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

63,33,321/- for the assessment year 1999-2000 and Rs.60,50,250/- for the assessment year 2000-01 ? 2) Whether on a true and proper interpretation of the provisions of section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 depreciation

3
Exemption3
Deduction3

The Commissioner of Income Tax - IV vs. M/s. Mekins Agro Product (P) Ltd.

ITTA/449/2013HC Telangana25 Sept 2013
Section 11(1)Section 29Section 32

sections 60 to 63, the following income shall not be included in the total income of the previous year ofthe person in receipt ofthe income- {a) income derived from property held under trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes, to the extent to which such income is applied to such purposes in India; and, where any such income is accumulated

Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) vs. M/s. Yashoda Super Speciality Hospital

In the result, the appeal fails

ITTA/196/2013HC Telangana04 Jul 2013
Section 143(3)Section 260Section 260ASection 263

depreciation of earlier years of Rs.2,16,63,815/-. The assessment was processed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 26.12.2005 determining

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

63,940/-; it had claimed deduction under Section 80-IB of the Act at ₹ 77,89,40,725/ The assessee manufactures mosquito repellants and has also traded, during the year in aerosols, oil spray, hand pumps, mats and coils. It had claimed deduction u/s 80-IB in respect of three units. The AO stated, in the impugned notice that

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

63,47,099/- 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

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

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-IV vs. M/s.Mold-Tek Technologies Ltd

ITTA/273/2011HC Telangana29 Feb 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 12Section 2(15)Section 260A

depreciation exceeds the surplus as generated from holding coaching classes. In addition, the petitioner institute provides study material and other academic support such as facilities of a library without any material additional costs. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. H. Abdul Bakhi and Bros. (supra) held as under: The expression "business" though extensively used

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Praga Tools Limited

ITTA/81/2012HC Telangana09 Jul 2012

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,N.RAVI SHANKAR

Section 33BSection 35(2)Section 4Section 69CSection 80Section 80I

63,04,928/-, Capital Expen Rs.3,00,67,328/- and deferred r research u/s 35(2) of Rs.1,55,3 purposes of determining deducti NJAB AND HARYANA ARH ITA-81-2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.07.2024 …Appellant …Respondent NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH or the appellant. ) .03.2014, for determination on he circumstances of the case, the lding the decision

Commissioner of Income-Tax, vs. Rangaraya Medical College Old Students Association

ITTA/269/2005HC Telangana14 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

For Appellant: SRI CHALLA GUNARANJAN
Section 1Section 151

63 OF 2005 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order D1.2O.12.2OO4 in W.P.No.11745 of 2004 on the file of the High Court. Between: M/s. Tata Teleservices Ltd, 5-9$2, K.L.K.Estate. Fatheh Maidan Road, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Senior Executive (legal) Y.b-Seetharaman. ...APPE LLANT/PETITIONER AND 1 Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd, Vidyut Soudha, Khairatabad