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 154clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai918Delhi817Bangalore360Chennai258Kolkata174Ahmedabad127Chandigarh65Jaipur63Hyderabad57Pune53Raipur46Surat42Lucknow33Indore28Cochin26Visakhapatnam19Jodhpur16Karnataka16SC14Telangana13Amritsar11Panaji11Cuttack9Rajkot9Kerala7Nagpur6Guwahati6Patna5Jabalpur3Allahabad3Dehradun3Calcutta3Agra3Varanasi2Punjab & Haryana1Himachal Pradesh1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 253(3)15Section 143(3)6Section 1543Condonation of Delay3Rectification u/s 1543

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)

154 was rejected. During the appellate proceedings AR was fair enough to concede on this issue. However, AR made two requests - one, that the current years losses and depreciation should be allowed; and second that due to error of omission, amount of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation was taken as Rs. 15,43,28,383/- instead

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)

154 was rejected. During the appellate proceedings AR was fair enough to concede on this issue. However, AR made two requests - one, that the current years losses and depreciation should be allowed; and second that due to error of omission, amount of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation was taken as Rs. 15,43,28,383/- instead

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)

154 was rejected. During the appellate proceedings AR was fair enough to concede on this issue. However, AR made two requests - one, that the current years losses and depreciation should be allowed; and second that due to error of omission, amount of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation was taken as Rs. 15,43,28,383/- instead