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.

121 results for “depreciation”+ Section 11(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,748Delhi4,360Bangalore1,731Chennai1,639Kolkata1,015Ahmedabad603Hyderabad362Jaipur331Pune307Karnataka260Raipur185Chandigarh183Indore139Surat136Cochin127Amritsar121Visakhapatnam99SC80Lucknow78Cuttack77Rajkot73Telangana58Jodhpur52Ranchi52Nagpur50Guwahati34Patna20Kerala20Dehradun19Calcutta17Panaji16Agra11Allahabad11Varanasi9Orissa7Punjab & Haryana7Rajasthan6Jabalpur4Gauhati2D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1Tripura1

Key Topics

Addition to Income89Section 12A81Disallowance71Section 14862Section 14462Section 250(6)59Section 143(3)54Depreciation53Natural Justice46Section 153A

M/S RAM SARAN DASS KISHORI LAL CHARITABLE TRUST,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- (EXEMPTIONS)), AMRITSAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 162/ASR/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 234BSection 250(6)

3) and treated the status as AOP (Association of Person) as the registration was cancelled by the ld. CIT-1, Amritsar. The exemption claimed u/s 11 of the Act was duly rejected and added with total income. Being aggrieved on the order of the ld. AO the assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The I.T.A. No. 103/Asr/2014

SH. RAM SHARAN DASS,AMRITSAR. vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AMRITSAR.

Showing 1–20 of 121 · Page 1 of 7

42
Section 1133
Deduction32

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 103/ASR/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Sept 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 234BSection 250(6)

3) and treated the status as AOP (Association of Person) as the registration was cancelled by the ld. CIT-1, Amritsar. The exemption claimed u/s 11 of the Act was duly rejected and added with total income. Being aggrieved on the order of the ld. AO the assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The I.T.A. No. 103/Asr/2014

RAM SARAN DASS KISHORI LAL CHARITABLE TRUST,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICE, AMRITSAR.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 230/ASR/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Sept 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 234BSection 250(6)

3) and treated the status as AOP (Association of Person) as the registration was cancelled by the ld. CIT-1, Amritsar. The exemption claimed u/s 11 of the Act was duly rejected and added with total income. Being aggrieved on the order of the ld. AO the assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The I.T.A. No. 103/Asr/2014

M/S RAM SARAN DASS KISHORI LAL CHARITABLE TRUST,AMRITSAR. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), AMRITSAR.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 27/ASR/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Sept 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 234BSection 250(6)

3) and treated the status as AOP (Association of Person) as the registration was cancelled by the ld. CIT-1, Amritsar. The exemption claimed u/s 11 of the Act was duly rejected and added with total income. Being aggrieved on the order of the ld. AO the assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The I.T.A. No. 103/Asr/2014

M/S RAM SARAN DASS KISHORI LAL CHARITABLE TRUST,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- (EXEMPTIONS), AMRITSAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 163/ASR/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 234BSection 250(6)

3) and treated the status as AOP (Association of Person) as the registration was cancelled by the ld. CIT-1, Amritsar. The exemption claimed u/s 11 of the Act was duly rejected and added with total income. Being aggrieved on the order of the ld. AO the assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The I.T.A. No. 103/Asr/2014

SH. RAM SARAN DASS KISHORI LAL,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMRITSAR.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 275/ASR/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Sept 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 234BSection 250(6)

3) and treated the status as AOP (Association of Person) as the registration was cancelled by the ld. CIT-1, Amritsar. The exemption claimed u/s 11 of the Act was duly rejected and added with total income. Being aggrieved on the order of the ld. AO the assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The I.T.A. No. 103/Asr/2014

M/S RAM SARAN DASS KISHORI LAL CHARITABLE TRUST,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD ( EXEMPTIONS), AMRITSAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 161/ASR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 234BSection 250(6)

3) and treated the status as AOP (Association of Person) as the registration was cancelled by the ld. CIT-1, Amritsar. The exemption claimed u/s 11 of the Act was duly rejected and added with total income. Being aggrieved on the order of the ld. AO the assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The I.T.A. No. 103/Asr/2014

MESERS IMPROVEMENT TRUST ,FAZILKA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 307/ASR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 250Section 28

depreciation the income amount of Rs.6,09,41,640/- was claimed as exempt u/s I.T.A. No. 307/Asr/2018 5 Assessment Year: 2014-15 11 of the Act. So, the total income of the assessee was Nil. The assessment was framed u/s 143(3). In the assessment the assessee was rejected for claimed of exemption u/s 11 and 12 by invoking section

M/S CITI PLAZA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 3(1), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 356/ASR/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Sept 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 147Section 148Section 250

11 Assessment Year: 2006-07 "is free to take action" against the co-owners, there was neither a "finding" against co-owners nor a "direction" to assess the co-owners within the meaning of s. 153(3)(ii) and the provision did not apply. Hon'ble Apex Court in Hope Textile vs. UOI (1994) 205 ITR 508(SC)" held thus

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FILL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

ITA 289/ASR/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2002-03

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)Section 80I

11 expenses on bank charges on bank guarantee, maintenance of two units u/s 80IB all the issues are adjudicated in favour of the assessee. So, the revenue has challenged this ground before the bench. The depreciation on capital subsidy section 43(1) Explanation-10 was upheldthe order of the ld. AO by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee has challenged

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. FIL INDUSTRIES LTD, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

ITA 471/ASR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)Section 80I

11 expenses on bank charges on bank guarantee, maintenance of two units u/s 80IB all the issues are adjudicated in favour of the assessee. So, the revenue has challenged this ground before the bench. The depreciation on capital subsidy section 43(1) Explanation-10 was upheldthe order of the ld. AO by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee has challenged

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. FIL INDUSTRIES LTD, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

ITA 470/ASR/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)Section 80I

11 expenses on bank charges on bank guarantee, maintenance of two units u/s 80IB all the issues are adjudicated in favour of the assessee. So, the revenue has challenged this ground before the bench. The depreciation on capital subsidy section 43(1) Explanation-10 was upheldthe order of the ld. AO by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee has challenged

M/S FIL INDUSTRIES LTD,SRINAGAR vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

ITA 417/ASR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)Section 80I

11 expenses on bank charges on bank guarantee, maintenance of two units u/s 80IB all the issues are adjudicated in favour of the assessee. So, the revenue has challenged this ground before the bench. The depreciation on capital subsidy section 43(1) Explanation-10 was upheldthe order of the ld. AO by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee has challenged

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FIL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

ITA 293/ASR/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)Section 80I

11 expenses on bank charges on bank guarantee, maintenance of two units u/s 80IB all the issues are adjudicated in favour of the assessee. So, the revenue has challenged this ground before the bench. The depreciation on capital subsidy section 43(1) Explanation-10 was upheldthe order of the ld. AO by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee has challenged

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FILL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

ITA 291/ASR/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)Section 80I

11 expenses on bank charges on bank guarantee, maintenance of two units u/s 80IB all the issues are adjudicated in favour of the assessee. So, the revenue has challenged this ground before the bench. The depreciation on capital subsidy section 43(1) Explanation-10 was upheldthe order of the ld. AO by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee has challenged

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FIL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

ITA 292/ASR/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)Section 80I

11 expenses on bank charges on bank guarantee, maintenance of two units u/s 80IB all the issues are adjudicated in favour of the assessee. So, the revenue has challenged this ground before the bench. The depreciation on capital subsidy section 43(1) Explanation-10 was upheldthe order of the ld. AO by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee has challenged

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FILL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

ITA 290/ASR/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)Section 80I

11 expenses on bank charges on bank guarantee, maintenance of two units u/s 80IB all the issues are adjudicated in favour of the assessee. So, the revenue has challenged this ground before the bench. The depreciation on capital subsidy section 43(1) Explanation-10 was upheldthe order of the ld. AO by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee has challenged

M/S FIL INDUSTRIES LTD,SRINAGAR vs. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

ITA 255/ASR/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)Section 80I

11 expenses on bank charges on bank guarantee, maintenance of two units u/s 80IB all the issues are adjudicated in favour of the assessee. So, the revenue has challenged this ground before the bench. The depreciation on capital subsidy section 43(1) Explanation-10 was upheldthe order of the ld. AO by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee has challenged

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FIL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

ITA 294/ASR/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)Section 80I

11 expenses on bank charges on bank guarantee, maintenance of two units u/s 80IB all the issues are adjudicated in favour of the assessee. So, the revenue has challenged this ground before the bench. The depreciation on capital subsidy section 43(1) Explanation-10 was upheldthe order of the ld. AO by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee has challenged

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SAMBA vs. SH. ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA, SAMBA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in Ground nos

ITA 475/ASR/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.475/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 40Section 80I

depreciation allowance and viii) disallowance U/s 40A(3) amount to Rs. 8,38,000/-.Being aggrieved the assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee. Being aggrieved revenue filed an appeal before us. Ground No.1 4. In the ground no. 1 of the revenue, the DR vehemently argued and contended