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.

4 results for “depreciation”+ Section 28clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,927Delhi2,620Bangalore1,128Chennai918Kolkata564Ahmedabad407Hyderabad228Jaipur206Karnataka175Pune158Raipur145Chandigarh135Indore94Amritsar94Surat91Visakhapatnam60Lucknow56Cuttack55Rajkot53SC52Cochin52Ranchi36Telangana33Nagpur29Jodhpur27Guwahati26Kerala19Patna17Dehradun16Panaji8Calcutta7Allahabad6Agra4Jabalpur4Punjab & Haryana4Varanasi4Rajasthan2D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Orissa1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Tripura1Gauhati1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 26310Section 143(3)5Section 1472Section 1482Disallowance2Reassessment2Survey u/s 133A2

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA vs. CHITAVALSAH JUTE MILLS LIMITED, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 99/AGR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing) Acit, Vs. Chitavalasah Jute Mills Ltd, Range-1, 73-74, 201, Sheetala House, Faridabad Nehru Place, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccc6834D Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/12/2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR
Section 144Section 271D

28-03-2024 during the remand proceedings and sought details which were duly furnished on 02-04-2024 by the assessee. Thereafter, the remand report was submitted to the ld AO on 05-08-2024 without making any enquiry on the evidences submitted by the assessee and by merely objecting to the admission of additional evidences

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA vs. ALNOOR EXPORTS, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 274/AGR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra03 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

depreciation amount of Rs. 11,775/- 2 08.11.2017 Bonus Cash payment 1,31,750 Paid to various contractors for payment of bonus to their labour. Only payment to four contractors exceeded Rs. 10,000/-. However, payment to each labour did not exceed Rs. 10,000/-. 3 15.07.2017 Labour Cash payment 11,000 Paid to School for fee five children

M/S UMA GLASS WORKS ,FIROZABAD vs. PR.CIT.-1, AGRA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2014-15 and

ITA 17/AGR/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra02 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.17 & 18/Agra/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम M/S Uma Glass Works Pcit, 22, Near Industrial Estate, Vs. Agra-1, Firozabad - 283203 Uttar Pradesh.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

depreciation and the consideration of only a part of it by the Assessing Officer who did not go into the issue with respect to the whole amount was an error that could be corrected u/s 263 of the Act. 16. The Ld. DR regarding order of AO being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue submits that

M/S UMA GLASS WORKS,AGRA vs. PR.CIT.-1, AGRA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2014-15 and

ITA 18/AGR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra02 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.17 & 18/Agra/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम M/S Uma Glass Works Pcit, 22, Near Industrial Estate, Vs. Agra-1, Firozabad - 283203 Uttar Pradesh.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

depreciation and the consideration of only a part of it by the Assessing Officer who did not go into the issue with respect to the whole amount was an error that could be corrected u/s 263 of the Act. 16. The Ld. DR regarding order of AO being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue submits that