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.

3 results for “depreciation”+ Section 43Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai534Delhi381Chennai172Kolkata170Bangalore138Ahmedabad119Raipur108Jaipur66Hyderabad57Pune46Visakhapatnam41Surat39Cuttack37Cochin25Lucknow19Guwahati18Amritsar16Indore15Karnataka10Chandigarh10Nagpur7Allahabad5SC4Rajkot4Telangana4Rajasthan3Agra3Jodhpur3Calcutta3Kerala2Panaji2Patna2Ranchi1

Key Topics

Addition to Income3Section 43B2Section 37(1)2Disallowance2

M/S SHIVHARE ROADLINES,GWALIOR vs. JT. C.I.T., RANGE-2, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 313/AGR/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra31 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 139(1)Section 37(1)Section 43B

depreciation claimed on trucks, trailers etc., and Rs.37,19,883/- u/s 43B as service tax not deposited before the due date of filing of return of income as per provisions of section

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 2025
AY 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

section 43B. Hence, the assessee gets a relief of Rs 13,90,285. 10.8 Ground No 4: That the A.O. was wrong in disallowing depreciation

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

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

Depreciation adjustment - 0.85 ----------- ----------- (0.39) 22.93) ----------- ----------- Further, it was submitted that the assessee has been consistently following this policy in the earlier years also and has claimed as allowable expenses u/s. 37 of the Act. 18 14. On the other hand, the ld.DR had drawn our attention to page 12 & 13 of the CIT(A) order where