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.

2 results for “depreciation”+ Section 220(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai418Delhi312Bangalore123Chennai105Kolkata56Jaipur53Raipur36Hyderabad30Ahmedabad29Lucknow14Pune13Cochin12Chandigarh10Cuttack9Kerala8Indore7Karnataka6Ranchi5Panaji5Surat4Nagpur3Rajkot3Amritsar3SC3Dehradun2Allahabad2Telangana1Calcutta1Rajasthan1Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 36(1)(viia)6Section 143(2)4Section 1432Depreciation2Disallowance2Natural Justice2

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)

220/- as against the ‘returned income’ of Rs 1,07,16,847/- , was liable to be declared as void ab-initio for the reason that selection of case for “scrutiny assessment” and notice under section 143(2) issued (in pursuance of such selection) were not in accordance with the ‘scheme’ of the Act. 2. BECAUSE the “CIT(A)”, in exercise

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)

220/- as against the ‘returned income’ of Rs 1,07,16,847/- , was liable to be declared as void ab-initio for the reason that selection of case for “scrutiny assessment” and notice under section 143(2) issued (in pursuance of such selection) were not in accordance with the ‘scheme’ of the Act. 2. BECAUSE the “CIT(A)”, in exercise