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.

9 results for “depreciation”+ Section 54clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,818Delhi1,591Bangalore633Chennai478Kolkata308Ahmedabad307Jaipur142Hyderabad135Raipur135Chandigarh99Pune72Surat66Indore59Amritsar58Lucknow56Visakhapatnam45Karnataka40Cuttack40Ranchi33Rajkot33Cochin25SC23Telangana16Jodhpur16Dehradun13Allahabad9Nagpur8Agra7Guwahati6Kerala5Patna5Panaji5Punjab & Haryana4Calcutta3Rajasthan2Orissa2Jabalpur1Gauhati1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 143(1)8Addition to Income8Section 1326Section 153A(1)(b)6Section 153A6Section 44A5Disallowance5Section 139(1)4Section 143(2)3

SHREE SUDHAKAR PANDEY,SONBHEDRA vs. ACIT RANGE-III,, MIRZAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7/ALLD/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad15 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2014-15 Shree Sudhakar Pandey, Civil Line, V Acit, Robertsganj, Sonebhadra, Uttar Pradesh- . Range-Iii, Mirzapur, U.P. 231216 Pan-Alds03711B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Ashish Bansal, Adv Respondent By: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 07/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/12/2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 44A

54,10,294/- is 2.19% only. (b) That though the accounts of the assessee have been audited were not audited and furnished within the prescribed time u/s 44AB of the Act. 4 Shree Sudhakar Pandey (c) As per section 44AB(d), which reads as “Every person,- carrying on the gains of such person under section 44AD and he has claimed

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Section 36(1)3
Natural Justice3
Penalty3
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

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

54,35,899/- was claimed. The enhancement of business loss was due to following expenses claimed for the year under consideration , which were not provided in the audited books of accounts for 13 Assessment Year: 1997-98 Shervani Sugar Syndicate Limited financial year 1996-97 and also not claimed as deduction in the return of income originally filed

ACIT, CIRCLE-3, MIRZAPUR vs. M/S N CHAURASIA ASSOCIATES, , SONEBHADRA (AAJFM0374N)

In the result, while the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed the appeal of the Department is held to be allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 41/ALLD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S N. Chaurasia Associates, Income Tax, Circle-3, Mirzapur Shaktinagar, Sonebhadra Pan:Aajfm0374N (Appellant) (Respondent) & A.Y. 2014-15 M/S N. Chaurasia Associates, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Khadia Bazar, Shaktinagar, Tax, Circle-Iii, Mirzapur Sonebhadra Pan:Aajfm0374N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Navin C. Agrawal, C.A. & Ms. Nita Goyal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.12.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: These Two Appeals For Have Both Been Filed Against The Order Under Section 250 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Allahabad On 10.01.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Revenue In Ita No. 41/Alld/2019, Are As Under:- "Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld.Cit(A) Has Not Erred In Allowing The Relief Of Rs. 6,51,65,031/- By Accepting The Assessee'S Statement That The Receipts Are From Its Business Activity In Civil Construction Without Any Verifiable A.Y. 2014-15 M/S N. Chaurasia Associates

For Appellant: Sh. Navin C. Agrawal, C.A. & Ms. NitaFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR
Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

section 143(2). The ld. AO observed, that as compared to assessment year 2012-13, the assessee had shown declining profit rates in the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 and in the assessment year 2014-15, the net profit rate was only rupees 2.437%. The ld. AO observed, that as per Form 26AS, the total contract receipts were

M/S N CHAURASIA ASSOCIATES,,SONEBHADRA vs. ACIT,, MIRZAPUR

In the result, while the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed the appeal of the Department is held to be allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 29/ALLD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S N. Chaurasia Associates, Income Tax, Circle-3, Mirzapur Shaktinagar, Sonebhadra Pan:Aajfm0374N (Appellant) (Respondent) & A.Y. 2014-15 M/S N. Chaurasia Associates, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Khadia Bazar, Shaktinagar, Tax, Circle-Iii, Mirzapur Sonebhadra Pan:Aajfm0374N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Navin C. Agrawal, C.A. & Ms. Nita Goyal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.12.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: These Two Appeals For Have Both Been Filed Against The Order Under Section 250 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Allahabad On 10.01.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Revenue In Ita No. 41/Alld/2019, Are As Under:- "Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld.Cit(A) Has Not Erred In Allowing The Relief Of Rs. 6,51,65,031/- By Accepting The Assessee'S Statement That The Receipts Are From Its Business Activity In Civil Construction Without Any Verifiable A.Y. 2014-15 M/S N. Chaurasia Associates

For Appellant: Sh. Navin C. Agrawal, C.A. & Ms. NitaFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR
Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

section 143(2). The ld. AO observed, that as compared to assessment year 2012-13, the assessee had shown declining profit rates in the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 and in the assessment year 2014-15, the net profit rate was only rupees 2.437%. The ld. AO observed, that as per Form 26AS, the total contract receipts were

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)

54 & 55/Alld/2020 for assessment year’s(ay’s) : 2015-16 and 2016-17 respectively are directed against two separate appellate orders both dated 24.10.2019 in appeal no. CIT(A), Allahabad/10377/2017-18 for ay:2015-16 and CIT(A), Allahabad/10448/2018-19 for ay:2016-17 , both passed by learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Allahabad, U.P. (hereinafter called “ the CIT(A)”) . The appellate

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)

54,283.73 In explaining the discrepancy between the print out and the books of accounts, the assessee submitted that the figure of sales as per the computer amounting to Rs.38,01,62,145/- as against actual sales of Rs.37,82,854,283/-, was due to an error in the computer software and improper commands giving at the time of taking

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)

54,283.73 In explaining the discrepancy between the print out and the books of accounts, the assessee submitted that the figure of sales as per the computer amounting to Rs.38,01,62,145/- as against actual sales of Rs.37,82,854,283/-, was due to an error in the computer software and improper commands giving at the time of taking

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)

54,283.73 In explaining the discrepancy between the print out and the books of accounts, the assessee submitted that the figure of sales as per the computer amounting to Rs.38,01,62,145/- as against actual sales of Rs.37,82,854,283/-, was due to an error in the computer software and improper commands giving at the time of taking