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.

7,908 results for “depreciation”+ Section 40clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,149Delhi2,017Bangalore910Chennai702Kolkata404Ahmedabad397Jaipur190Hyderabad189Raipur135Pune122Chandigarh72Indore71Amritsar66Cochin45Visakhapatnam44Ranchi43Surat41Lucknow40Karnataka35SC34Rajkot34Nagpur25Guwahati21Kerala19Cuttack17Patna17Jodhpur15Dehradun8Telangana6Agra6Calcutta6Jabalpur5Allahabad5Varanasi4Panaji4Punjab & Haryana3Rajasthan2D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1Orissa1Tripura1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)95Addition to Income80Disallowance58Section 14A53Depreciation40Deduction39Section 153A35Section 115J30Section 4028Section 263

M/S UKN PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2012/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, D.R
Section 10Section 14ASection 40

depreciation is subjected to the provisions of sec. 40(a)(i) or not ?. We quote the provisions of sec. 40(a)(i) as under: 40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections

M/S. L & T HOCHTIEF SEABIRD JOINT VENTURE,MUMBAI vs. THE DY IT CIR 12(2), MUMBAI

Showing 1–20 of 7,908 · Page 1 of 396

...
25
Section 143(2)21
Section 80I19

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2901/MUM/2008[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 L&T Hochtief Seabird Joint Dy. Commissioner Of Venture Vs. Income Tax Range 12(2), Taxation Department, L&T Room No. 114, 1St Floor, House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Estate, Mumbai-400001 Marg, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaaal0284E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. J.D. Mistry, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Nishant Samaiya, DR
Section 143

40(b) of the Act and hence, if any such fees is part of opening WIP, the same is required to be reduced from WIP and added to the total income and such method will be applied while computing closing WIP as on 31.03.2003. With the above reasons, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance made

M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTPU , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2846/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C(3)

depreciation on the same in the year in which such asset is put to use. 11. Disallowance under section 40

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MAHENDRA MILLS

The appeal is dismissed

C.A. No.-005394-005394 - 1994Supreme Court15 Mar 2000
For Respondent: MAHENDRA MILLS
Section 32Section 34Section 72Section 73

depreciation in respect of any asset is not admissible as a deduction under clause (ii) of sub- section (4) of section 37 or sub-clause (ii) of clause (c) of section 40

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LTU 1, MUMBAI

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

ITA 3262/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () It(Tp)A No. 3262/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Mr. Manish Kumar Kanth, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Uodal Raj Singh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 90

section 40(a)(i) should not apply to allowance of depreciation on imported software, if treated as capital in nature

ASST CIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI vs. TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD, MUMBAI

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

ITA 3389/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () It(Tp)A No. 3262/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Mr. Manish Kumar Kanth, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Uodal Raj Singh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 90

section 40(a)(i) should not apply to allowance of depreciation on imported software, if treated as capital in nature

M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, CIRCLE - 6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

ITA 1166/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 32Section 40

depreciation could not be disallowed by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(i)/(ia) of the act. Section 40

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-6, BANGALORE vs. M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA-BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

ITA 958/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 32Section 40

depreciation could not be disallowed by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(i)/(ia) of the act. Section 40

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, SPECIAL RANGE - 6, BANGALORE vs. M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA-BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

ITA 978/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 32Section 40

depreciation could not be disallowed by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(i)/(ia) of the act. Section 40

M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

ITA 1092/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 32Section 40

depreciation could not be disallowed by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(i)/(ia) of the act. Section 40

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE - 6, BANGALORE vs. M/S. SAMSUNG R &D INSTITUTE INDIA- BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

ITA 1046/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 32Section 40

depreciation could not be disallowed by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(i)/(ia) of the act. Section 40

WINTAC LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 834/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri. Anil Rao, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Swapna Das, JCIT
Section 32Section 40Section 9

depreciation is subjected to the provisions of sec. 40(a)(i) or not ?. We quote the provisions of sec. 40(a)(i) as under: Page 5 of 9 40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections

ACIT CC 4 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MAERSK LINE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 6166/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Manish Kant, CAFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (Sr. DR)
Section 135Section 250Section 40Section 80G

depreciation and development rebate.\n•\nSection 35 grants deduction on expenditure for scientific research and\nknowledge extension in natural and applied sciences under agriculture,\nanimal\nhusbandry and fisheries. Payment to approved\nuniversities/research institutions orcompany also qualifies for\ndeduction. In-house R&D is eligible for deduction, under this section.\n•\nSection 35CCD provides deduction for skill development projects, which\nconstitute

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD ( CORPORATE FINANCE DIVISION),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

ITA 3762/MUM/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistry Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kishor Dhule
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 43B

40,458/-. The Assessee filed as revised return on 20/03/2008 declaring total income of INR 10,60,25,15,698/-. The case of the Assessee was selected for regular scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued the Assessee on 15/10/2007. The Assessing Officer completed assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act vide Assessment Order, dated

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S W.S. ATKINS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and C

ITA 1083/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Respondent: Shri M.K. Biju, JCIT (DR) (ITAT)-3, Bengaluru
Section 10A

depreciation is subjected to the provisions of sec. 40(a)(i) or not ?. We quote the provisions of sec. 40(a)(i) as under: 40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections

M/S SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised\ngrounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue\nstands dismissed for the years under consideration

ITA 484/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2024AY 2014-15
For Appellant: \nSmt. Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: \nShri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 32Section 40

40(a)(i)/(ia) by observing as under:\n“5.5 Under the circumstances, I am constrained to invoke\nthe amended provisions of section 9(1) with regard to\ndefinition of ‘royalty' and to apply the same for the\npurpose of section 194J. Accordingly, the depreciation

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE - 6, BANGALORE vs. M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA -BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised\ngrounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue\nstands dismissed for the years under consideration

ITA 1045/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2024AY 2012-13
For Appellant: \nSmt. Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 32Section 40

40(a)(i)/(ia) by observing as under:\n“5.5 Under the circumstances, I am constrained to invoke\nthe amended provisions of section 9(1) with regard to\ndefinition of ‘royalty' and to apply the same for the\npurpose of section 194J. Accordingly, the depreciation

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 assessee has neither challenged the applicability of Section 50 of the Act nor has it challenged the income determined in accordance with the Section 50. The issue before us is, whether the rate of tax which is to be determined u/s.112 of the Act shall be applicable if asset is a long term capital asset held

DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No 2(a) & (b) of the revenue in ITA No. 4109/Mum/2012, therefore stands dismissed

ITA 5690/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 37Section 40

40(a)(ia) of interest expenditure of Rs.12,62,87,403/- paid by the Appellant to a Trust of which a banking company was a Trustee on the grounds of non-deduction of tax at source 10. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.10,01,707/- of Overseas Taxes paid by the appellant claimed under section

INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), BANGALORE vs. M/S KAWASKI MICRO ELECTRONICS INC., BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1221/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR), ITAT, BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Advocate
Section 32Section 32(1)Section 40Section 40A

depreciation is subjected to the provisions of IT(IT)A No.1221/Bang/2014 Page 4 of 10 sec. 40(a)(i) or not ?. We quote the provisions of sec. 40(a)(i) as under: 40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections