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.

5 results for “depreciation”+ Section 234Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai371Delhi354Bangalore168Ahmedabad103Kolkata52Jaipur46Chennai44Pune28Raipur20Hyderabad20Lucknow13Indore11Visakhapatnam8Dehradun7Agra5Chandigarh5Surat5Nagpur4Cochin3Cuttack3Jodhpur3Karnataka2SC2Amritsar2Telangana2Rajkot2Ranchi2Punjab & Haryana1Calcutta1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 234C7Section 143(1)4Section 1454Addition to Income4Section 44A3Section 234B3Section 1473Section 115J2Section 2072Depreciation

AARA AGRO PVT. LTD.,AGRA vs. DY.CIT., CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AGRA

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 54/AGR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra23 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenalt.A No. 54/Agr/2021 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Vs. Cit Circle-2 (1)(1) Agra Agro Private Limited Agra U.P. Anjana Cinema, 3/2 D.M.G. Road Agra U.P. 282007 Pan: Aagca8595F (Revenue) (Assessee)

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 207Section 234BSection 234C

section 13. 234C of the Act. The appellant company had filed e-return declaring income of Rs.26,60,05 400/- under normal provisions of the Act which inter alia included only capital gains viz a viz long term capital gains worked out on sale of land and short term capital gains worked out on sale of depreciable

M/S GINNI FILAMENTS LTD.,MATHURA vs. A.C.I.T., RANGE-3, MATHURA

2
Penalty2
Comparables/TP2

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

ITA 173/AGR/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Agra02 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 234BSection 44A

234C of the 'Act'. 11. BECAUSE, the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and principles of natural justice.” 2. Effectively ground No. 2(a) to 2(c) pertain to rejection of books of account and estimation of gross profit @ 16% as against 13.96% disclosed by the assessee. 3. Apropos these grounds ld. AR for the assessee

MR. PRAMOD KUMAR KHANDELWAL,AGRA vs. DY.C.I.T.-1, AGRA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed in the terms indicated

ITA 200/AGR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra12 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 145Section 271(1)Section 44A

section 44AD of the Act are not applicable over the assessee's case. 4. That without prejudice to the foregoing grounds, in the alternative: - a) the authorities below could not justify the adoption of 8% net profit rate in the type of business carried on by the assessee, without quoting any comparable case or without assigning any logical or rational

MR. PRAMOD KUMAR KHANDELWAL,AGRA vs. DY.C.I.T.-1, AGRA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed in the terms indicated

ITA 201/AGR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra12 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 145Section 271(1)Section 44A

section 44AD of the Act are not applicable over the assessee's case. 4. That without prejudice to the foregoing grounds, in the alternative: - a) the authorities below could not justify the adoption of 8% net profit rate in the type of business carried on by the assessee, without quoting any comparable case or without assigning any logical or rational

JAWAHAR LAL AGARWAL,AGRA vs. I.T.O., WARD-4(2), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 336/AGR/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Nov 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

Section 129Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 50CSection 54BSection 54F

234C, which is wrong and illegal.” 2. The following additional ground has also been raised: “7. Because in any view, the Assessment framed u/s 143/147 of the IT Act is without Jurisdiction void-ab-initio, as the proceedings u/s 147/148 were initiated by other A.O. (not having Jurisdiction of the case of the appellant), the impugned Assessment/Additions