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.

8,855 results for “depreciation”+ Exemptionclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,546Delhi1,962Chennai1,053Bangalore905Kolkata508Ahmedabad331Jaipur215Hyderabad169Pune165Karnataka155Raipur126Chandigarh115Lucknow69Surat62Indore61Visakhapatnam57Cochin54Amritsar42SC35Cuttack34Rajkot30Telangana25Jodhpur22Nagpur22Guwahati15Ranchi10Calcutta10Panaji9Varanasi7Kerala6Agra6Patna6Allahabad5Rajasthan5Dehradun3Orissa3Gauhati2Jabalpur2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 14A99Section 143(3)81Addition to Income68Disallowance57Deduction40Section 153A34Depreciation30Section 1128Section 26320Section 115J

DCIT-2(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. ZENSAR TECHNOLOGIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5653/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 10ASection 80Section 92

exemption claimed u/s.10A due to difference in depreciation between book depreciation and depreciation u/s.32 of the Act for Rs.1,61,18,819/-. The Assessing

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CLARIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 295/AHD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Feb 2024

Showing 1–20 of 8,855 · Page 1 of 443

...
19
Exemption16
Section 13215
AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 295/Ahd/2022 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2018-2019 The D.C.I.T, M/S Claris Lifesciences Limited, Central Circle-2(1), Vs. Claris Corporate Hq, Ahmedabad. Near Parimal Rly. Crossing, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Aaacc6366Q

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parimalsinh B. ParmarFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT.D.R
Section 50Section 54ESection 70Section 74

depreciable asset and, therefore, exemption available to depreciable asset under section 54E cannot be denied by referring to fiction created

TATA COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the question of law referred to the Special Bench is answered in favour of the assessee

ITA 3515/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Arun Khodpiatata Communications Limited Pr. Cit, Videsh Sanchar Bhavan, Mumbai-1 Vs. M. G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacv 2808 C (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri J. D. Mistri Respondent By : Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Present Appeal, At The Instance Of The Assessee, Assails Order Dated 21.03.2025, Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short), By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (‘Ld. Pcit’ For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds, Both On Jurisdictional Issues As Well As On Merits, However, There Is Consensus Between The Parties That The Appeal Can Be Decided On Merits, In Which Event, There Is No Need To Go Into Various Other Issues Raised In Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri J. D. MistriFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 112Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50

depreciable asset and, therefore, the exemption available to the depreciable asset under section 54E cannot be denied by referring to the fiction

DCIT 4(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE TRANSPORT AND TRAVELS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5683/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman: A.Y : 2013-14 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Reliance Transport & Tax – 4(3)(1), Travels Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai (Appellant) 6Th Floor, Nagin Mahal, 82, Veer Nariman Road, Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020. Pan : Aaacr2380M (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh YadavFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Thar
Section 143(3)

depreciable asset and, therefore, the exemption available to the 19 Reliance Transport & Travels Pvt. Ltd. depreciable asset under section 54E cannot

SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 261/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar & Chaitanya
Section 112Section 194CSection 250Section 37(1)Section 40Section 50

depreciable asset and, therefore, the exemption available to the depreciable asset under section 54E cannot be denied by referring to the fiction

ACIT 421 MUMBAI, MUMBAI CITY vs. SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI, MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the\nappeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1022/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2022-23
Section 112Section 194CSection 250Section 37(1)Section 40Section 50

depreciable asset and, therefore, the exemption\navailable to the depreciable asset under section 54E cannot be denied by referring\nto the fiction

TRAVOTEL (I) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 2(3)-3, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1551/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri J P Boaz & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 50Section 54E

exemption under section 54E does not make distinction between depreciable asset and non-depreciable asset and, therefore, exemption would be available

DCITCC 3(2) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. HRISHIKESH D. PAI, MUMBAI

In the result , the appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

ITA 2766/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2766/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बिाम/ Dcit, Cc 3(2) Cen Rg 3 Shri Hrishikesh D. Pai, R.No. 1913, 19Th Floor, C/O M/S. Pregnancy Air India Building, Advice & Services, V. Nariman Point, 304, Pearl Centre, Mumbai S.B. Marg, Dadar, Mumbai 400028 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabpp2139C (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh, Dr Assessee By : Shri. Vijay Mehta सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement :26.09.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 2766/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 05.12.2016 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2012-13, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2015 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2012-13. I.T.A. No.2766/Mum/2017

For Appellant: Shri. Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 253(3)Section 50Section 54FSection 69B

depreciable asset and, therefore, the exemption available to the depreciable asset under Section 54E cannot be denied by referring to the fiction

ZODIAC JRD MKJ LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIR 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 836/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Ms. Drutika Jain, A.R. &For Respondent: Smt. Sonia Kumar, D.R
Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 2Section 234BSection 50Section 54E

depreciable asset and, therefore, the exemption available to the depreciable asset under section 54E cannot be denied by referring to the fiction

ITO 29(1)(3), MUMBAI vs. DEVYANI R DOSHI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3576/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32(1)Section 50Section 54ESection 54F

exemption u/s 54F is available to depreciable asset as section 54F does not make any distinction between depreciable asset and a non depreciable

KANPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,KANPUR vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION RANGE, GHAZIABAD

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2201/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, /And Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Dayainder SinghFor Respondent: Sidhu
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 234B

depreciation holding that assessee is enjoying exemption u/s 11 since inception and the assets was created out of exempt Income

KANPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,KANPUR vs. ADDL.CIT, EXEMPTION RANGE, GHAZIABAD

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2200/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, /And Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Dayainder SinghFor Respondent: Sidhu
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 234B

depreciation holding that assessee is enjoying exemption u/s 11 since inception and the assets was created out of exempt Income

KANPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,KANPUR vs. ADDL.CIT, EXEMPTION RANGE, GHAZIABAD

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2202/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, /And Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Dayainder SinghFor Respondent: Sidhu
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 234B

depreciation holding that assessee is enjoying exemption u/s 11 since inception and the assets was created out of exempt Income

MADRAS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY,CHENNAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS) III, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1538/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.Nandita S.Das, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JCIT, DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 2(45)

depreciation. The income of the assessee being exempt, the assessee was only claiming that depreciation should be reduced from the income

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3076/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2006-07

Section 10BSection 29Section 32Section 32(2)Section 43A

depreciation, the assessee may get exemption but none the less he cannot take only a portion of depreciation just to suit

NAGAR URBAN CO-OP BANK LTD,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDNAGAR CIRCLE, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 208/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

depreciation on Govt. Securities claimed at Rs.1,12,00,000/-be allowed in full. Ground No. 3: That the learned Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar has erred in not accepting the claim made during the course of hearing for allowing tax free income earned by way of dividend. That the income claimed exempt

UNIQUE PROPERTIES & SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER - CENTRAL CIRCLE 38, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 66/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Unique Properties & Securities Private Assistant Commissioner-Central Circle Limited, 4Th Floor, Malhotra House, Opp. Vs. 38, [Now Dcit Central Circle 6(3)], 19Th Gpo, Fort, Mumbai-400001. Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaacu0702G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Prayag Jha - ARFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari - DR
Section 143(3)Section 54E

depreciable asset and, therefore, the exemption available to the depreciable asset under section 54E cannot be denied by referring to the fiction

ITO 24(1)(5), MUMBAI vs. ENGINEERING EQUIPMENTS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 65/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.65/Mum/2015 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Income Tax Officer 24(1)(5), बनाम/ M/S Engineering Equipment, -31, Shree Laxmi Industrial Room No.523, Vs. Estate, New Link Road, Piramal Chambers, Andheri (W), Parel, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400053 Mumbai-400012. (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. स्थधमी रेखध सं./जीआइआय सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaafe2008C

For Appellant: Shri H M Wanare
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 50Section 50ESection 54E

depreciable asset and, therefore, the exemption available to the depreciable asset under section 54E cannot be denied by referring to the fiction

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH vs. UNIPRO TECHNO INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the order of the ld CIT(A) is confirmed and the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 693/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri A.K. Sood, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 80I

depreciation for the exempted and non- exempt units and thus the suspicion of the Pr. CIT, Chandigarh that the facts

DCIT 10(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. PHOENIX MECANO (I) PLTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 4620/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year:2011-12

Section 10ASection 10BSection 70Section 80A(1)Section 80B(5)Section 80C

depreciation, the assessee may get exemption but nonetheless he cannot take only a portion of depreciation just to suit his income