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.

40 results for “depreciation”+ Section 14A(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,721Delhi1,078Chennai575Kolkata361Bangalore351Ahmedabad215Hyderabad57Pune49Karnataka44Raipur42Amritsar40Ranchi40Visakhapatnam28Jaipur22Cochin21Chandigarh20Lucknow16Indore13Jodhpur10Telangana9Surat8Guwahati7Calcutta7Rajkot6Panaji6Varanasi4Cuttack4Orissa2Nagpur1

Key Topics

Section 14466Section 250(6)40Depreciation40Disallowance40Addition to Income40Natural Justice33Section 4021Section 143(3)7Section 14A(3)7

MEASEG G.H AGRO PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,AMRITSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 18/ASR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

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

Section 144Section 250(6)

2,73,53,991/- was remitted to the bank account of M/s Narula Foods Pvt. Ltd. without appreciating the implication of seized documents evidencing suppression of sales. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in ignoring evidence of clear instance of suppression of sales on regular basis and restricting

MEASAGE SAT KARTAR SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED,FEROZEPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 26/ASR/2020[2013-14]Status: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 40 · Page 1 of 2

Section 367
Deduction7
TDS7
ITAT Amritsar
09 Jun 2023
AY 2013-14

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

Section 144Section 250(6)

2,73,53,991/- was remitted to the bank account of M/s Narula Foods Pvt. Ltd. without appreciating the implication of seized documents evidencing suppression of sales. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in ignoring evidence of clear instance of suppression of sales on regular basis and restricting

MEASAGE SAT KARTAR SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED,FEROZEPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 27/ASR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

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

Section 144Section 250(6)

2,73,53,991/- was remitted to the bank account of M/s Narula Foods Pvt. Ltd. without appreciating the implication of seized documents evidencing suppression of sales. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in ignoring evidence of clear instance of suppression of sales on regular basis and restricting

MEASAGE NARULA SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED,MOGA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE , AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 33/ASR/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 144Section 250(6)

2,73,53,991/- was remitted to the bank account of M/s Narula Foods Pvt. Ltd. without appreciating the implication of seized documents evidencing suppression of sales. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in ignoring evidence of clear instance of suppression of sales on regular basis and restricting

MEASAGE NARULA SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED,MOGA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 34/ASR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

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

Section 144Section 250(6)

2,73,53,991/- was remitted to the bank account of M/s Narula Foods Pvt. Ltd. without appreciating the implication of seized documents evidencing suppression of sales. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in ignoring evidence of clear instance of suppression of sales on regular basis and restricting

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR vs. M/S NARULA OIL & FATS PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 58/ASR/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

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

Section 144Section 250(6)

2,73,53,991/- was remitted to the bank account of M/s Narula Foods Pvt. Ltd. without appreciating the implication of seized documents evidencing suppression of sales. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in ignoring evidence of clear instance of suppression of sales on regular basis and restricting

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR vs. M/S NARULA OIL & FATS PRIVTE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 59/ASR/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

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

Section 144Section 250(6)

2,73,53,991/- was remitted to the bank account of M/s Narula Foods Pvt. Ltd. without appreciating the implication of seized documents evidencing suppression of sales. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in ignoring evidence of clear instance of suppression of sales on regular basis and restricting

M/S NARULA OIL & FATS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHEMDABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 63/ASR/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Jun 2023AY 2008-09

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

Section 144Section 250(6)

2,73,53,991/- was remitted to the bank account of M/s Narula Foods Pvt. Ltd. without appreciating the implication of seized documents evidencing suppression of sales. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in ignoring evidence of clear instance of suppression of sales on regular basis and restricting

M/S NARULA OIL & FATS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHEMDABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 64/ASR/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 144Section 250(6)

2,73,53,991/- was remitted to the bank account of M/s Narula Foods Pvt. Ltd. without appreciating the implication of seized documents evidencing suppression of sales. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in ignoring evidence of clear instance of suppression of sales on regular basis and restricting

M/S NARULA OIL & FATS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHEMDABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 65/ASR/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 144Section 250(6)

2,73,53,991/- was remitted to the bank account of M/s Narula Foods Pvt. Ltd. without appreciating the implication of seized documents evidencing suppression of sales. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in ignoring evidence of clear instance of suppression of sales on regular basis and restricting

M/S NARULA OIL & FATS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHEMDABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 66/ASR/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

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

Section 144Section 250(6)

2,73,53,991/- was remitted to the bank account of M/s Narula Foods Pvt. Ltd. without appreciating the implication of seized documents evidencing suppression of sales. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in ignoring evidence of clear instance of suppression of sales on regular basis and restricting

M/S NARULA OIL & FATS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHEMDABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 67/ASR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

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

Section 144Section 250(6)

2,73,53,991/- was remitted to the bank account of M/s Narula Foods Pvt. Ltd. without appreciating the implication of seized documents evidencing suppression of sales. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in ignoring evidence of clear instance of suppression of sales on regular basis and restricting

M/S NARULA FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,FEROZEPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 75/ASR/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 144Section 250(6)

2,73,53,991/- was remitted to the bank account of M/s Narula Foods Pvt. Ltd. without appreciating the implication of seized documents evidencing suppression of sales. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in ignoring evidence of clear instance of suppression of sales on regular basis and restricting

M/S NARULA FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,FEROZEPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 76/ASR/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 144Section 250(6)

2,73,53,991/- was remitted to the bank account of M/s Narula Foods Pvt. Ltd. without appreciating the implication of seized documents evidencing suppression of sales. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in ignoring evidence of clear instance of suppression of sales on regular basis and restricting

M/S NARULA FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,FEROZEPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 77/ASR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

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

Section 144Section 250(6)

2,73,53,991/- was remitted to the bank account of M/s Narula Foods Pvt. Ltd. without appreciating the implication of seized documents evidencing suppression of sales. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in ignoring evidence of clear instance of suppression of sales on regular basis and restricting

M/S NARULA FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,FEROZEPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 78/ASR/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

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

Section 144Section 250(6)

2,73,53,991/- was remitted to the bank account of M/s Narula Foods Pvt. Ltd. without appreciating the implication of seized documents evidencing suppression of sales. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in ignoring evidence of clear instance of suppression of sales on regular basis and restricting

M/S NARULA FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,FEROZEPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 79/ASR/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

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

Section 144Section 250(6)

2,73,53,991/- was remitted to the bank account of M/s Narula Foods Pvt. Ltd. without appreciating the implication of seized documents evidencing suppression of sales. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in ignoring evidence of clear instance of suppression of sales on regular basis and restricting

M/S NARULA FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,FEROZEPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 80/ASR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

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

Section 144Section 250(6)

2,73,53,991/- was remitted to the bank account of M/s Narula Foods Pvt. Ltd. without appreciating the implication of seized documents evidencing suppression of sales. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in ignoring evidence of clear instance of suppression of sales on regular basis and restricting

MEASAGE SAT KARTAR SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED,FEROZEPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 16/ASR/2020[2001-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Jun 2023AY 2001-12

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

Section 144Section 250(6)

2,73,53,991/- was remitted to the bank account of M/s Narula Foods Pvt. Ltd. without appreciating the implication of seized documents evidencing suppression of sales. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in ignoring evidence of clear instance of suppression of sales on regular basis and restricting

MEASAGE G.H AGRO PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,AMRITSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 17/ASR/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 144Section 250(6)

2,73,53,991/- was remitted to the bank account of M/s Narula Foods Pvt. Ltd. without appreciating the implication of seized documents evidencing suppression of sales. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in ignoring evidence of clear instance of suppression of sales on regular basis and restricting