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.

93 results for “depreciation”+ Section 13(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,482Delhi3,347Bangalore1,415Chennai1,085Kolkata588Ahmedabad563Hyderabad343Jaipur258Pune236Chandigarh173Raipur154Indore106Cochin102Amritsar93Visakhapatnam79SC72Lucknow69Surat63Karnataka52Rajkot52Ranchi48Jodhpur45Cuttack35Nagpur34Guwahati23Kerala19Panaji14Patna13Allahabad9Agra9Dehradun9Telangana8Calcutta7Varanasi6Rajasthan6Jabalpur5Punjab & Haryana4Orissa4Gauhati2MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1Himachal Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Tripura1

Key Topics

Addition to Income80Section 14466Disallowance59Section 250(6)57Section 14853Depreciation50Natural Justice48Section 143(3)46Section 12A42Section 153A

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

Showing 1–20 of 93 · Page 1 of 5

36
Deduction34
Section 80I31

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

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 issue before the bench by a cross appeal. Being aggrieved on the order of the appellate authorityboth the parties has challenged the appeal order before us. 5. The ld. counsel for the assessee argued

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

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 issue before the bench by a cross appeal. Being aggrieved on the order of the appellate authorityboth the parties has challenged the appeal order before us. 5. The ld. counsel for the assessee argued

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

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 issue before the bench by a cross appeal. Being aggrieved on the order of the appellate authorityboth the parties has challenged the appeal order before us. 5. The ld. counsel for the assessee argued

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

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 issue before the bench by a cross appeal. Being aggrieved on the order of the appellate authorityboth the parties has challenged the appeal order before us. 5. The ld. counsel for the assessee argued

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

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 issue before the bench by a cross appeal. Being aggrieved on the order of the appellate authorityboth the parties has challenged the appeal order before us. 5. The ld. counsel for the assessee argued

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

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 issue before the bench by a cross appeal. Being aggrieved on the order of the appellate authorityboth the parties has challenged the appeal order before us. 5. The ld. counsel for the assessee argued

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

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 issue before the bench by a cross appeal. Being aggrieved on the order of the appellate authorityboth the parties has challenged the appeal order before us. 5. The ld. counsel for the assessee argued

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

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 issue before the bench by a cross appeal. Being aggrieved on the order of the appellate authorityboth the parties has challenged the appeal order before us. 5. The ld. counsel for the assessee argued

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

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 issue before the bench by a cross appeal. Being aggrieved on the order of the appellate authorityboth the parties has challenged the appeal order before us. 5. The ld. counsel for the assessee argued

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

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 issue before the bench by a cross appeal. Being aggrieved on the order of the appellate authorityboth the parties has challenged the appeal order before us. 5. The ld. counsel for the assessee argued

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

depreciation made was incorrect. Therefore, we are of the view that there is no finding given by the Tribunal in the order dated 25th October 2002 which would enable the Assessing Officer to extend the period of limitation as provided under Section 150 of the Act for the purpose of issuing impugned notice in respect of Assessment Year

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)

depreciation amount to Rs.44,10,065/- and amount to Rs.10,000/- for personal use of car and telephone. But the ld. CIT(A) upheld the observation of the ld. AO that the status of the assessee is a AOP due to not registered u/s 12AA of the Act. The status of the assessee was changed from registered to unregistered trust

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)

depreciation amount to Rs.44,10,065/- and amount to Rs.10,000/- for personal use of car and telephone. But the ld. CIT(A) upheld the observation of the ld. AO that the status of the assessee is a AOP due to not registered u/s 12AA of the Act. The status of the assessee was changed from registered to unregistered trust

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

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)

depreciation amount to Rs.44,10,065/- and amount to Rs.10,000/- for personal use of car and telephone. But the ld. CIT(A) upheld the observation of the ld. AO that the status of the assessee is a AOP due to not registered u/s 12AA of the Act. The status of the assessee was changed from registered to unregistered trust

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)

depreciation amount to Rs.44,10,065/- and amount to Rs.10,000/- for personal use of car and telephone. But the ld. CIT(A) upheld the observation of the ld. AO that the status of the assessee is a AOP due to not registered u/s 12AA of the Act. The status of the assessee was changed from registered to unregistered trust

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)

depreciation amount to Rs.44,10,065/- and amount to Rs.10,000/- for personal use of car and telephone. But the ld. CIT(A) upheld the observation of the ld. AO that the status of the assessee is a AOP due to not registered u/s 12AA of the Act. The status of the assessee was changed from registered to unregistered trust

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)

depreciation amount to Rs.44,10,065/- and amount to Rs.10,000/- for personal use of car and telephone. But the ld. CIT(A) upheld the observation of the ld. AO that the status of the assessee is a AOP due to not registered u/s 12AA of the Act. The status of the assessee was changed from registered to unregistered trust

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)

depreciation amount to Rs.44,10,065/- and amount to Rs.10,000/- for personal use of car and telephone. But the ld. CIT(A) upheld the observation of the ld. AO that the status of the assessee is a AOP due to not registered u/s 12AA of the Act. The status of the assessee was changed from registered to unregistered trust

UNIVERSAL BIOMASS ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,GURUHARSAHAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1), FEROZEPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 267/ASR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 80I

depreciation), and the same was I.T.A. No. 267/Asr/2024 3 Assessment Year: 2018-19 processed u/s 143(1) on 20th February, 2020, by CPC, Bangalore, by disallowing the claim u/s 80IA(4)(iv) of Rs.5,61,39,920/-, (in absence of any audit report in form 10CCB on record). 3.1 In between, the case was selected for complete scrutiny under