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.

14 results for “depreciation”+ Section 10(20)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,383Delhi3,109Bangalore1,314Chennai1,088Ahmedabad793Kolkata714Pune420Hyderabad401Jaipur394Chandigarh284Raipur174Surat161Visakhapatnam160Indore156Cochin144Cuttack142Karnataka124Amritsar112Rajkot82Lucknow61SC53Jodhpur53Ranchi51Guwahati50Nagpur49Telangana37Agra23Kerala20Dehradun19Panaji16Patna15Allahabad14Varanasi8Calcutta8Rajasthan5Jabalpur5Punjab & Haryana3Gauhati2D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1Tripura1

Key Topics

Section 253(3)15Section 143(3)13Disallowance10Addition to Income9Section 143(1)6Section 1326Section 153A(1)(b)6Section 153A6Section 36(1)(viia)

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)

10% of aggregate average advances made by Rural Branches cannot be allowed to the assessee as per provisions of Section 36(1)(viia) read with Explanations to said Section. The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below. It was submitted by ld. DR that the assessee has not even filed workings to quantify computing deduction claimed under

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

6
Section 143(2)5
Depreciation5
Condonation of Delay4

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)

10% of aggregate average advances made by Rural Branches cannot be allowed to the assessee as per provisions of Section 36(1)(viia) read with Explanations to said Section. The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below. It was submitted by ld. DR that the assessee has not even filed workings to quantify computing deduction claimed under

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)

20. Still aggrieved by the appellate order dated 24.09.2019 passed by ld. CIT(A), the assessee carried the matter in appeal further before the tribunal by filing second appeal, on both issues concerning firstly disallowance of depreciation with respect to closed Allahabad Manufacturing Unit and secondly concerning disallowance of Rebate Expenses claimed by assessee as deduction while computing business income

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)

20. Still aggrieved by the appellate order dated 24.09.2019 passed by ld. CIT(A), the assessee carried the matter in appeal further before the tribunal by filing second appeal, on both issues concerning firstly disallowance of depreciation with respect to closed Allahabad Manufacturing Unit and secondly concerning disallowance of Rebate Expenses claimed by assessee as deduction while computing business income

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)

20. Still aggrieved by the appellate order dated 24.09.2019 passed by ld. CIT(A), the assessee carried the matter in appeal further before the tribunal by filing second appeal, on both issues concerning firstly disallowance of depreciation with respect to closed Allahabad Manufacturing Unit and secondly concerning disallowance of Rebate Expenses claimed by assessee as deduction while computing business income

MOHD. SULAMAN FAROOQUI ,PRATAPGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , PRATAPGARH

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5/ALLD/2021[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad20 Dec 2021AY 2016-2017
For Appellant: Mr. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

20,667/- out of depreciation by disallowing 10% of expenses claimed is highly unjustified. 6. That in any view of the mater addition of Rs, 11,18,805/- out of cash deposit in bank account is highly unjustified and the Assessing officer was wrong in invoking the p0rovisiojn of Section

VINOD KUMAR TANDON,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT(CPC),, BEGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 29/ALLD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad22 Nov 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234BSection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

depreciation). Each of these deductions, has its contours, depending upon the expressions used, and the conditions that are to be met. It is therefore necessary to bear in mind that specific enumeration of deductions, dependent upon fulfilment of particular conditions, would qualify as allowable deductions: failure by the assessee to comply with those conditions, would render the claim vulnerable

MEJA URJA NIGAM (P) LTD.,ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE WARD-2 (2), ALLAHABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for ay: 2015-16 and 2016-17

ITA 54/ALLD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad03 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Ms.Namita S. Pandey, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Parv Agrawal, CA
Section 143(3)

10 has exempted it from tax, it will be taxable. The fact that the source of income was borrowed money does not detract anything from the revenue character of the receipt. The question of adjustment of interest payable by the company against the interest earned by it will depend upon the provisions of the Act. The expenditure would have been

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)

depreciation had been claimed by the assessee on the WDV method. The ld. AO observed, that the details called for by him were not submitted, but on scrutiny of the various details, observed that M/s Kesarwani Zarda Bhandar had shown transportation of goods through Amritsar Transport Company by Truck No. U.P. 70 X 9761 – one of the trucks stated

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)

depreciation had been claimed by the assessee on the WDV method. The ld. AO observed, that the details called for by him were not submitted, but on scrutiny of the various details, observed that M/s Kesarwani Zarda Bhandar had shown transportation of goods through Amritsar Transport Company by Truck No. U.P. 70 X 9761 – one of the trucks stated

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)

depreciation had been claimed by the assessee on the WDV method. The ld. AO observed, that the details called for by him were not submitted, but on scrutiny of the various details, observed that M/s Kesarwani Zarda Bhandar had shown transportation of goods through Amritsar Transport Company by Truck No. U.P. 70 X 9761 – one of the trucks stated

ACIT CIRCLE-2, ALLAHABAD vs. M/S SHERWANI SUGAR SYNDICATE LTD., ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 227/ALLD/2016[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad24 Dec 2021AY 1997-98

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 1997-98 The Assistant Commissioner Of V. M/S Shervani Sugar Syndicate Income-Tax, Circle-2, Ltd., Allahabad, U.P. 28, South Road , Allahabad,U.P. Pan/Gir: 19-653-Cv-3480 New Pan: Not Available (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Bansal Adv
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44A

20 Assessment Year: 1997-98 Shervani Sugar Syndicate Limited 5.4Aggrieved by the decision of ld. CIT(A) deleting the additions to the tune of Rs. 94,93,016/- as was made by AO towards unpaid interest accrued and due, the Revenue has come in appeal before the tribunal.The ld. Sr. DR submitted that there was accrued and due interest

ACIT,, ALLAHABAD vs. M/S KESARWANI & CO., ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 429/ALLD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad29 Nov 2024AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Dr. Neel Jain, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

10,59,878/- taken by the ld. AO while the sales were at Rs.26,82,38,594/- against sales of Rs. 26,52,92,658/- taken by the ld. AO. Furthermore, the gross profit declared by the assessee was Rs.1,40,08,718/- as against the GP of Rs.1,27,40,535/- worked

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

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 393/ALLD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad29 Nov 2024AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Dr. Neel Jain, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

10,59,878/- taken by the ld. AO while the sales were at Rs.26,82,38,594/- against sales of Rs. 26,52,92,658/- taken by the ld. AO. Furthermore, the gross profit declared by the assessee was Rs.1,40,08,718/- as against the GP of Rs.1,27,40,535/- worked