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 131(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai752Delhi637Bangalore207Chennai159Kolkata105Raipur96Jaipur95Karnataka75Ahmedabad66Hyderabad46Chandigarh35Surat29Pune28Indore25Lucknow23Jodhpur17Visakhapatnam16Cochin13Guwahati9Rajkot8Cuttack7Nagpur6Ranchi4SC4Agra3Amritsar2Telangana2Panaji2Dehradun1Patna1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 2639Section 10(37)4Section 143(2)3Section 54D2Natural Justice2

SHRI AMRITPAL SINGH (PROP),JALANDHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 425/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

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

Section 110Section 263Section 54D

section 263 be quashed, annulled and cancelled in the interest of justice, equity and fair-play. GOA:- 14:- Vide ground of appeal No.14, it is humbly prayed that in the event of any adversity arising out of the brief written submission besides judgement set, I.T.A. No. 425/Asr/2019 19 Assessment Year: 2014-15 assessee may kindly be afforded an effective opportunity

SHRI KANAV KHANNA,,AMRITSAR. vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the ground no- G of appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 77/ASR/2015[2010-11]Status: Disposed
ITAT Amritsar
04 Jul 2022
AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Sh. R. K. Magow, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rahul Dhawan, CIT-DR
Section 10(37)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194LSection 250(6)

1,28,36,480/- is being demanded illegally, arbitrarily and vexatiously to harass the appellant and to meet predetermined revenue targets of the Respondent. 3. The appellant had made all factual and legal submissions and records before the Respondent and also before the Additional Commissioner with supporting case laws and records, both of whom did not bother to look into