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.

10 results for “depreciation”+ Block Assessmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,585Delhi1,192Chennai566Bangalore525Kolkata389Ahmedabad226Hyderabad154Raipur108Jaipur80Chandigarh79Karnataka77Pune67Amritsar47Cuttack37Indore30Surat28Visakhapatnam25Guwahati24SC22Lucknow20Nagpur17Rajkot15Cochin13Telangana12Allahabad10Dehradun6Ranchi6Jabalpur5Jodhpur4Panaji4Agra2Kerala2Calcutta2Rajasthan1Punjab & Haryana1Patna1Orissa1D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1

Key Topics

Section 253(3)15Section 153A10Section 143(3)9Disallowance7Section 1326Section 153A(1)(b)6Section 36(1)(viia)6Section 143(2)5Addition to Income

KESARWANI & C0.,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT., ALLAHABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 392/ALLD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad29 Nov 2024AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Neel Jain, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)

block assessment in the case of search initiated against the assessee would not apply, as the special procedure for assessment in search cases contained in Chapter XIVB stood abolished and the new provision of section 153A provided for only a single assessment, of the period comprising of previous years, relating to six assessment years preceding the year in which

5
Undisclosed Income4
Section 143(1)3
Penalty3

KESARWANI & C0,,ALLAHABAD vs. JT CIT,, ALLAHABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 390/ALLD/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad29 Nov 2024AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Neel Jain, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)

block assessment in the case of search initiated against the assessee would not apply, as the special procedure for assessment in search cases contained in Chapter XIVB stood abolished and the new provision of section 153A provided for only a single assessment, of the period comprising of previous years, relating to six assessment years preceding the year in which

KESARWANI & CO.,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT,, ALLAHABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 389/ALLD/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad29 Nov 2024AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Neel Jain, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)

block assessment in the case of search initiated against the assessee would not apply, as the special procedure for assessment in search cases contained in Chapter XIVB stood abolished and the new provision of section 153A provided for only a single assessment, of the period comprising of previous years, relating to six assessment years preceding the year in which

TRIVENI GLASS LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

ITA 21/ALLD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad14 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao& Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Ms. Tanu Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh,Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 253(3)

assessment framed by AO, carried the matter further before ld. CIT(A) by filing first appeal, and the assessee submitted before ld. CIT(A) on the first issue of disallowance of depreciation , as under.:- “The A.O has wrongly computed the amount disallowed being 30% of total depreciation claimed u/s 32 amounting to Rs.12148152/- as Rs.36444445/- instead of Rs.3644445/-. As mentioned

TRIVENI GLASS LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3) , ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

ITA 19/ALLD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad14 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao& Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Ms. Tanu Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh,Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 253(3)

assessment framed by AO, carried the matter further before ld. CIT(A) by filing first appeal, and the assessee submitted before ld. CIT(A) on the first issue of disallowance of depreciation , as under.:- “The A.O has wrongly computed the amount disallowed being 30% of total depreciation claimed u/s 32 amounting to Rs.12148152/- as Rs.36444445/- instead of Rs.3644445/-. As mentioned

TRIVENI GLASS LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

ITA 20/ALLD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad14 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao& Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Ms. Tanu Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh,Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 253(3)

assessment framed by AO, carried the matter further before ld. CIT(A) by filing first appeal, and the assessee submitted before ld. CIT(A) on the first issue of disallowance of depreciation , as under.:- “The A.O has wrongly computed the amount disallowed being 30% of total depreciation claimed u/s 32 amounting to Rs.12148152/- as Rs.36444445/- instead of Rs.3644445/-. As mentioned

COMMERCIAL AUTO SALES PVT.LTD,ALLAHABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee with tribunal in ITA No

ITA 17/ALLD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad14 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh,Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Block of Asset’ remaining after reducing consideration received on sale of vehicle. The ld. DR did not raised any objection towards dismissal of ground number 5 concerning disallowance of loss of Rs. 1,40,689/- on sale of vehicle(depreciable). After hearing both the parties , the ground number 5 concerning claim of deduction towards ‘loss on sale of vehicle’ stood

M/S BHOLA FOOD PRODUCTS(P) LTD.,ALLAHABAD vs. JT. CIT,(OSD),, ALLAHABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee for ay: 2005-06 and 2009-10

ITA 66/ALLD/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad03 Mar 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. Praveen Godbole, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Debashish Chanda, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 153A

block assessments made determining the income at Rs. 1,13,46,700/- as against the returned income of Rs. 12,44,150/- is illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of the Income Tax Act hence such order passed is nullify. 3. That in any view of the matter disallowances of the expenses of Rs. 14,77,400/- made

ZILA SAHKARI BANK LTD.,MIRZAPUR vs. ASSTT. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, MIRZAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

ITA 135/ALLD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh.Ashish Bansal AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 36(1)(viia)

Block of Assets-‘Plant and Machinery’ of Rs. 13,50,973/- and claimed depreciation @15%. The AO asked assessee to submit evidence. The assessee filed copies of bills totaling an amount of Rs. 1,53,793/- and these bills were for office furniture , which were purchased after September, 2009 . The AO allowed depreciation 5% (50% of the normal depreciation

ZILA SAHKARI BANK LTD,,MIRZAPUR vs. JT. C.I.T.,, MIRZAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

ITA 136/ALLD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh.Ashish Bansal AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 36(1)(viia)

Block of Assets-‘Plant and Machinery’ of Rs. 13,50,973/- and claimed depreciation @15%. The AO asked assessee to submit evidence. The assessee filed copies of bills totaling an amount of Rs. 1,53,793/- and these bills were for office furniture , which were purchased after September, 2009 . The AO allowed depreciation 5% (50% of the normal depreciation