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 153Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai56Amritsar45Delhi45Bangalore31Chandigarh21Lucknow7Cuttack6Jaipur5Cochin4Pune3Hyderabad3Kolkata3Ahmedabad3Nagpur1Chennai1

Key Topics

Section 1546Section 2503Section 153D3Section 153A3Section 2(22)(e)3Section 143(1)2Section 153C2Section 1322Depreciation2

TECHNODOT ENGINEERS PVT. LTD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 93/AHD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokari.T(Ss).A. Nos.147&148/Ahd/2019 (A.Ys.: 2005-06 & 2006-07) Smt. Neelu Sanjay Gupta, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of L/H. Of Late Shri Sanjay Gupta Income Tax, B-202, Dhananjay Tower, Central Circle-2(2), Anand Nagar Road, Satellite, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380015 [Pan No.Adypg0351K] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) I.T(Ss).A. Nos.21 To 23/Ahd/2020 & 15/Ahd/2022 & Ita No. 93/Ahd/2020) (A.Ys.: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2006-07 & 2010-11 To 2011-12) M/S. Technodot Engineers Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of C/O. Cambay Hotel & Resorts, Income Tax, Plot No. 22, 23, 24 Gidc, Central Circle-2(2), Sector-25, Gandhinagar-382010 Ahmedabad [Pan No.Aabct5392A] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & Shri ParimalFor Respondent: Shri R. N. Dsouza, CIT-DR & Shri Rignesh K
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A
Section 271(1)(b)

Section 80G, amounting to Rs. 15,000/-. This disallowance was made because the necessary supporting documents for claiming the deduction were either insufficient or not provided. Moreover, unrecorded interest income of Rs. 4,402/- was added to the income, as it had not been accounted for in the original return filed by the assessee. Finally, a disallowance of depreciation

KESAR BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED,BANASKANTHA vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-3, AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the PCIT and restore the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. The appeal of the assessee is thus allowed

ITA 790/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2021-2028 Kesar Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. The Ld.Pr.Cit 1St Floor Shri Kesar Cold Vs. Ahmedabad-3 Storage Plot No.B-2 To 9, Rev Survey No.85/2 Paiki Near Hotel Jyoti Vil Banaskantha. Pan : Aabck 4923 E (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Hem Chhajed, Ar Assessee By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/09/2025

For Appellant: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 269S

Depreciation, Interest and Taxes) as compared to business turnover.” Pursuant thereto, notices under section 143(2) dated 28.06.2022 and 142(1) dated 11.08.2022, 08.10.2022, 24.11.2022 of the Act were issued to the assessee calling for details in relation to its return of income, profit and loss account, and other supporting documents. 2.2 Despite initial non-compliance, the assessee eventually furnished

GHCL LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1643/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prem Prakash Meena, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 153CSection 153DSection 154Section 250

Section 250 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short], for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds:- “1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the order passed by learned AO u/s 154 of the Act for not allowing