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.

103 results for “depreciation”+ Section 21(5)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,070Delhi2,958Bangalore1,244Chennai1,012Ahmedabad765Kolkata609Pune391Hyderabad375Jaipur371Chandigarh266Raipur164Surat147Indore146Visakhapatnam139Cuttack122Karnataka121Amritsar103Cochin99Rajkot71Lucknow61Guwahati58SC54Nagpur50Ranchi50Jodhpur43Telangana32Agra26Dehradun18Kerala18Panaji16Allahabad13Calcutta9Varanasi8Patna6Punjab & Haryana4Rajasthan3Gauhati2Jabalpur1D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Tripura1Orissa1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 12A99Addition to Income78Disallowance70Section 143(3)67Section 14467Depreciation62Section 250(6)50Natural Justice36Section 1134Deduction

SHIROMANI GURDWARA PARBANDHAK COMMITTEE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I,

In the result the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 530/ASR/2009[]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Aug 2021

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenav.S. Cit – I Shirmoni Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee Amritsar Teja Singh Mundri Hall Sri Amritsar Pan:Aants1981K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10Section 12ASection 2Section 80Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

depreciation in respect of 42,000 bottles out of the total number of bottles (5,46,000), by reason of the impugned judgment. That benefit is sought to be taken away by the Department, which is not permissible in law. This is the infirmity in the impugned judgment of the High Court and the Tribunal.” d. The elementary principle found

Showing 1–20 of 103 · Page 1 of 6

29
Section 4027
Section 25026

M/S STEP BY STEP JUNIOR SCHOOL SOCIETY,AMRITSAR. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

ITA 596/ASR/2016[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 10

5) of section 11, after the expiry of one year from the end of the ITA 596/Amr/2016 11 previous year in which such asset is acquired or the 31st day of March, 1992, whichever is later:] Provided also that nothing contained in sub-clause (iv) or sub-clause (v) 79[or sub-clause (vi) or sub-clause (via)] shall apply

M/S KASHMIR STEEL ROLLING MILLS,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 548/ASR/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 548/(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Bansal (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

5 to 8 of the order passed by Hon'ble A.M.) There was, therefore, no ambiguity in law for the Parliament to have stepped in by introducing section 271(1B), deeming a satisfaction where the order of assessment or reassessment contains a direction for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c). This is precisely what stands clarified

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 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 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 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

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. 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

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 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 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 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

ESS ESS KAY ENGINEERING COMPAY PRIVATE LIMITED ,KAPURTHALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 192/Asr/2022 is

ITA 23/ASR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.23/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Ess Ess Kay Engineering Co. Vs. Nfac, Delhi/C/O Asstt. Pvt. Ltd. Factory Area, Commissioner Of Income Jalandhar. Tax Circle-4, Jalandhar. [Pan: Aaace5057G] (Respondent) (Appellant)

Section 143(1)Section 250oSection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

21, where there is only change in figures in other appeals, which are reproduced below:. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds: I.T.A. Nos.23, 24&14/Asr/2023 3 A.Ys.: 2019-20 & 2020-21 “1. That the worthy CIT(Appeals), NFAC was absolutely wrong, unjustified and erred both on facts and in law to have upheld, the additions/disallowances made

KAY SWITCGEARS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KAPURTHALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 192/Asr/2022 is

ITA 24/ASR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Apr 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.23/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Ess Ess Kay Engineering Co. Vs. Nfac, Delhi/C/O Asstt. Pvt. Ltd. Factory Area, Commissioner Of Income Jalandhar. Tax Circle-4, Jalandhar. [Pan: Aaace5057G] (Respondent) (Appellant)

Section 143(1)Section 250oSection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

21, where there is only change in figures in other appeals, which are reproduced below:. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds: I.T.A. Nos.23, 24&14/Asr/2023 3 A.Ys.: 2019-20 & 2020-21 “1. That the worthy CIT(Appeals), NFAC was absolutely wrong, unjustified and erred both on facts and in law to have upheld, the additions/disallowances made

M. K HOTEL & RESORTS LIMITED,AMRITSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 192/Asr/2022 is

ITA 14/ASR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Apr 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.23/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Ess Ess Kay Engineering Co. Vs. Nfac, Delhi/C/O Asstt. Pvt. Ltd. Factory Area, Commissioner Of Income Jalandhar. Tax Circle-4, Jalandhar. [Pan: Aaace5057G] (Respondent) (Appellant)

Section 143(1)Section 250oSection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

21, where there is only change in figures in other appeals, which are reproduced below:. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds: I.T.A. Nos.23, 24&14/Asr/2023 3 A.Ys.: 2019-20 & 2020-21 “1. That the worthy CIT(Appeals), NFAC was absolutely wrong, unjustified and erred both on facts and in law to have upheld, the additions/disallowances made

SH. RAJINDER KUMAR CHADHA,BEAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMRITSAR.

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

ITA 28/ASR/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar19 Dec 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.संसंसंसं././././I.T.A No.28/Asr/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/A.Y.:2003-04 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" Shri Rajinder Kumar Chadha, Vs. Income Tax Officer, K/105, Dera Baba Jaimal Singh, Ward-4(3) Amritsar Beas Pan:Abipc 5206 H अपीलाथ"Appellant अपीलाथ" ""यथ"/Respondent ""यथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" ""यथ" ""यथ"

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 254

21,940 on account of long-term capital gain on sale of properties. 5. Succinct facts are that the assessee has filed return of income on 10.07.2003 declaring total income of Rs. 2,22,940. The assessment was reopened under section 148 vide notice dated 22.03.2010. The assessment was made under section 143 (3) read with section

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

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