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.

5 results for “depreciation”+ Section 69clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,543Delhi1,350Bangalore532Chennai372Kolkata346Ahmedabad267Jaipur157Hyderabad143Chandigarh90Amritsar79Pune78Raipur71Indore64Cuttack52Visakhapatnam42Ranchi41Surat34Lucknow30Karnataka28Rajkot25Nagpur23Guwahati20Cochin18SC14Telangana12Agra10Patna8Jodhpur7Allahabad5Kerala5Dehradun5Panaji4Calcutta4Jabalpur3Varanasi3MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Punjab & Haryana1Himachal Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 143(1)6Section 1326Section 153A(1)(b)6Section 153A6Section 695Addition to Income5Section 139(1)4Disallowance4Section 36(1)3Section 271(1)(c)

RAJESH KUMAR JAISWAL,,ALLAHABAD vs. DEPUTY/ACIT(CENTRAL), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 16/ALLD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad02 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: the query raised by the assessing authority vide questionnaire issued under section 142 (1) dated 23.01.2021, in assessment proceedings for the AY 2018-19.

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Agarwal & Ms. VidishaFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 115Section 115BSection 142Section 24Section 250Section 68Section 69

69 and section 69B, because the investment in this case had only been partly been recorded in the books of accounts. Section 115BBE prescribed special rates of tax for additions made under section69 and 69B and the same was also applicable to income being declared in the return itself which was apparent from a reading of section 115BBE

3
Penalty3
Undisclosed Income3

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

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)

69,876/-. Thus, the ld. AO observed a difference of Rs.3,79,66,146/-. In order to explain the difference, the assessee submitted a chart before the ld. AO which showed the sales figure as under:- Credit sales Rs.32,99,57,561.14 Cash Memo sales Rs.62,68,466.59 Total Sales (Excluding VAT) Rs.33,62,26,027.73 VAT @ 12.50% on sales

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)

69,876/-. Thus, the ld. AO observed a difference of Rs.3,79,66,146/-. In order to explain the difference, the assessee submitted a chart before the ld. AO which showed the sales figure as under:- Credit sales Rs.32,99,57,561.14 Cash Memo sales Rs.62,68,466.59 Total Sales (Excluding VAT) Rs.33,62,26,027.73 VAT @ 12.50% on sales

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)

69,876/-. Thus, the ld. AO observed a difference of Rs.3,79,66,146/-. In order to explain the difference, the assessee submitted a chart before the ld. AO which showed the sales figure as under:- Credit sales Rs.32,99,57,561.14 Cash Memo sales Rs.62,68,466.59 Total Sales (Excluding VAT) Rs.33,62,26,027.73 VAT @ 12.50% on sales