Search: depreciation | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

281 results for “depreciation”+ Section 115Jclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi108 Mumbai104 Kolkata16 Ahmedabad14 Jaipur9 SC7 Bangalore7 Nagpur4 Rajkot3 Chennai3 D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1 Cuttack1 Guwahati1 Chandigarh1 Hyderabad1 Indore1

Key Topics

Section 115J130 Section 14A64 Addition to Income56 Disallowance52 Section 143(3)46 Section 80I35 Deduction33 Section 153A25 Depreciation24 Section 148

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. KANSARA POPATLAL TRIBHOVANDAS METAL PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed while the Cross

ITA 412/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri M.J. Shah, AR &For Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr DR

section 115J. The Assessing Officer rejected claim of assessee on ground that depreciation for purposes of section 115J was permissible

MALAYALA MANORAMA CO LTD. vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX, TRIVANDRUM

The appeals are allowed and the

C.A. No.-005420-005423 - 2002Supreme Court

Showing 1–20 of 281 · Page 1 of 15

...

21

10 Apr 2008

For Respondent: Commissioner of Income Tax,Trivandrum

Section 115JSection 33Section 80Section 80V

depreciation in its books of account at the rates prescribed in the Income-tax Rules, the Income Tax Officer has jurisdiction under section 115J

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL I vs. SAIN PROCESSSING & WEAVING MILLS P.LTD.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA - 1128 / 2007HC Delhi17 Dec 2008

For Appellant: Mr R D JollyFor Respondent: Mr Ajay Vohra

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 260A

depreciation not provided for in the accounts; computed, in accordance with Section 205(2) of the Companies Act. The sum and substance of the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee is that, the „book profit‟ has to be determined in accordance with the accounts prepared under sub-section (1A) of Section 115J

M/S. DYNAMIC ORTHOPEDICS PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN

C.A. No.-008419-008419 - 2003Supreme Court16 Feb 2010

Section 115JSection 205Section 349Section 350Section 355Section 80V

depreciation as per the Income Tax Rules, 1962, for the purposes of computing the book profit under Section 115J of the Income

M/S KARNATAKA SMALL S.INDT.DEV.COR.LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,BANGALORE

C.A. No.-000823-000823 - 2000Supreme Court03 Dec 2002

For Respondent: Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

Section 115Section 115JSection 115J(1)Section 256(1)Section 28Section 32Section 72Section 73Section 74Section 74A

depreciation which would have been allowed on such assets in the regular method of assessment in accordance with the provisions of Section 28 to 43 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without applying the provisions of Section 115J

CIT vs. GOETZE (INDIA) LTD

ITA - 1179 / 2010HC Delhi09 Dec 2013

Section 10(33)Section 115JSection 14ASection 154Section 260ASection 263

Section 115J showed loss of Rs.10.50 crores, but the Assessing Officer had calculated the book profits at a positive figure of Rs.2.15 crores. Thus, substantial addition was made to the book profits. Secondly, the Assessing Officer had observed that transfer from the valuation reserve was essentially an equalisation device meant to ensure that the depreciation

M/S. PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, HISAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1389/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 205(1)(b)Section 234B

Section 115J; and the amount of depreciation which is absorbed in a notional assessment under Section 143/144 for the relevant

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), NOW CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, BARODA vs. GUJARAT STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LTD.,, BARODA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 3164/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 28Section 37Section 43(1)

section 115J. The Assessing Officer rejected claim of assessee on ground that depreciation for purposes of section 115J was permissible

GUJARAT STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LTD.,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 3124/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 28Section 37Section 43(1)

section 115J. The Assessing Officer rejected claim of assessee on ground that depreciation for purposes of section 115J was permissible

CIT vs. FEDERAL MOGUL GOETZE INDIA LTD

ITA - 1979 / 2010HC Delhi09 Dec 2013

Section 10(33)Section 115JSection 14ASection 154Section 263

Section 115J showed loss of Rs. 10.50 crores, but the Assessing Officer had calculated the book profits at a positive figure of Rs.2.15 crores. Thus, substantial addition was made to the book profits. Secondly, the Assessing Officer had observed that transfer from the valuation reserve . was essentially an equalisation device meant to ensure that the depreciation

CIT vs. FEDERAL-LOGUL GOETZE (INDIA) LTD

ITA - 1366 / 2010HC Delhi09 Dec 2013

Section 10(33)Section 115JSection 14ASection 154Section 263

Section 115J showed loss of Rs. 10.50 crores, but the Assessing Officer had calculated the book profits at a positive figure of Rs.2.15 crores. Thus, substantial addition was made to the book profits. Secondly, the Assessing Officer had observed that transfer from the valuation reserve . was essentially an equalisation device meant to ensure that the depreciation

KANSARA POPATLAL TRIBHUVAN METAL PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-2,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ground number 9 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1057/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Purshottam Kumar, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)

section 115J. The Assessing Officer rejected claim of assessee on ground that depreciation for purposes of section 115J was permissible

ACIT CENTRAL CIR6(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. MARIANA INFRASTRUCTURTE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2395/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhthe Asstt. Commissioner Vs. Mariana Infrastructure Of Income Tax, Central Limited, M-62 &63, Circle -6(4) 1St Floor, Connaught Room No. 1925, 19Th Place, New Delhi Floor, Air India Building, 110 001 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aafcm2619H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ajay Chandra Respondent By : K. Gopal Date Of Hearing 13.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-54, Mumbai Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O U/S 143(3) Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Allowing The Claim Of Deduction Of Revenue Of Cancelled Transaction Of Rs.27,78,65,132/- Cancelled In Subsequent Year From The Book Profit Though Section 115Jb Is A Self-Contained Code Where Even The Additions & Deductions From The Book Profit Are Specified The Provisions Of Section 115Jb Des Not Allow Any Such Deductions?."

For Appellant: Ajay ChandraFor Respondent: K. Gopal

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 194I

depreciation, which had not been charged to profit and loss account but had been disclosed in notes appended to accounts, would be deducted from net profit in determining book profit for purpose of section 115J

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S ATRIA HYDEL POWER LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, ITA Nos.534 to 556/Bang/2018 and CO Nos

ITA 114/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Years : 2010-11 Income-Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Atria Hydel Power Ltd., Ward - 1(1)(2), #1, Palace Road, Bengaluru. Bangalore-560 001. Pan : Aacca 3754 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 211(2)Section 80I

depreciation which have been adopted for preparing such accounts including profit and loss account for such financial year or part of such financial year failing within the relevant previous year". The scheme of the section 115JB is similar to section 115J

M/S. ACC LTD ( FORMELY KNOWN AS THE ASSOCIATED CEMEMTN COMPANIES LTD),MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed while the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 4895/MUM/2007[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2022AY 2004-2005

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, Shri ChaitanyaFor Respondent: Shri K.K. Mishra

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

115J.” 14.7.4. In the present case the books of accounts have been accepted by the Assessing Officer and therefore, the Assessing Officer only has limited power to increase/decrease of book profits in terms of Explanation to Section 115JB of the Act. Provision for Technical Fees, Royalty and Interest is not a provision made for unascertained liability and does not fall

THE ACIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. ASSOCIATED CEMENT CO., MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed while the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 5259/MUM/2007[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2022AY 2004-2005

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, Shri ChaitanyaFor Respondent: Shri K.K. Mishra

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

115J.” 14.7.4. In the present case the books of accounts have been accepted by the Assessing Officer and therefore, the Assessing Officer only has limited power to increase/decrease of book profits in terms of Explanation to Section 115JB of the Act. Provision for Technical Fees, Royalty and Interest is not a provision made for unascertained liability and does not fall

SEABIRD MARINE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMNAGAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, JAMNAGAR, JAMANGAR

In the result, ground No.4 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 83/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Section 114Section 115JSection 143(3)

depreciation in its profit and loss account which according to the\nrevenue is not in accordance with Parts II and III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, 1956\n('the Act'). Hence, the Assessing Officer while considering the case of the assessee- company\nunder section 115J

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED , KOLKATA

ITA 623/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Section 115JSection 250

depreciation and other capital expenditure mentioned is varied when such liability crystalises in the year of payment. Hence, the mark-to-market loss being only a notional loss for the purpose of the books of account of the assessee and no crystallization of such loss having been occurred during the year, such loss has rightly been disallowed

BATLIBOI LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 5428/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm M/S. Batliboi Limited Vs. Dy. Cit, Circle 2(1) Bharat House, Aayakar Bhavan 5Th Floor, 104 5Th Floor, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai Samachar Marg Fort, Mumbai -400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacb4408L (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40A

115J of the Act, it claimed the amount of depreciation as deduction from the net profit disclosed in the profit and loss account. The relevant observation of the Hon'ble High Court in respect of the said controversy was as under: "The answer to this poser is found in sub-section

TATA METALIKS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 788/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Agarwal &For Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT

Section 115JSection 43B

depreciation adopted for preparing the Book Profits under section 115JB shall be the same as adopted for the purpose of preparing such accounts including profit and loss account and laid before the company at its annual general meeting. Therefore, whatever accounting policy was adopted for the purpose of preparing the P&L laid before the company should be adopted