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.

413 results for “depreciation”+ Section 115Jclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai139 Delhi128 Kolkata44 Ahmedabad20 Jaipur12 Bangalore12 Surat10 SC7 Chennai6 Rajkot4 Guwahati4 Nagpur4 Pune4 Indore3 Hyderabad3 Telangana3 Cochin2 Visakhapatnam2 Karnataka2 Gauhati1 Chandigarh1 D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1 Cuttack1

Key Topics

Section 115J166 Section 143(3)69 Section 14A63 Section 80I49 Addition to Income49 Disallowance45 Deduction39 Section 8033 Depreciation28 Section 153A

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 413 · Page 1 of 21

...

21

Section 143(2)18

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

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

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

JSW STEEL LTD vs. ASST CIT CIR 11(5),

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed whereas revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 923/BANG/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05

For Appellant: S/Shri Kanchan Kaushal & Hirali Desai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alok Johri, CIT D.R

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 244A

115J is to tax such companies which are making huge profits and also declaring substantial dividends but are managing their affairs in such a way as to avoid payment of income-tax, as a result of various tax concessions and incentives and for that purpose, the taxable income is determined under sub-section (1) of section 115 J. An assessee

ASST CIT CIR 11(5) vs. JSW STEEL LTD,

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed whereas revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 930/BANG/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05

For Appellant: S/Shri Kanchan Kaushal & Hirali Desai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alok Johri, CIT D.R

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 244A

115J is to tax such companies which are making huge profits and also declaring substantial dividends but are managing their affairs in such a way as to avoid payment of income-tax, as a result of various tax concessions and incentives and for that purpose, the taxable income is determined under sub-section (1) of section 115 J. An assessee

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

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

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

CIT vs. GOETZE INDIA LTD

ITA/2106/2010HC Delhi09 Dec 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

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 MOGUL GOETZE INDIA LTD

ITA/1979/2010HC Delhi09 Dec 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

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

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-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

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

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

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

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 83/Rjt/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Seabird Marine Services Pvt. Vs. Ltd. Office No. 309 & 310, Centroid Luxuria, Nr. Crystal Mall, Khodiyar Colony, Aerodrome Road, Jamnagar 361006 Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Jamnagar, Aayakar Bhawan, Nr. Subhash Bridge, Jamnagar -Rajkot Highway, Jamnagar स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccs 9869 C (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S. N. Soparkar, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2025 Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: आदेश / Order Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Dehi/ Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [In Short 'Ld. Cit(A)'], Dated 02.01.2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer, Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), Vide Order Dated 31.12.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “All The Below Mentioned Grounds Of Appeal Are Independent & Without Prejudices To Each Other.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT-DR

Section 114Section 115JSection 143(3)

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