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.

5 results for “depreciation”+ Section 220(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai400Delhi312Bangalore120Chennai93Ahmedabad76Jaipur66Kolkata56Cochin40Raipur38Hyderabad29Pune20Nagpur14Lucknow14Indore12Cuttack11Chandigarh10Kerala8Surat7Karnataka6Amritsar5Panaji5Ranchi5Rajkot3SC3Visakhapatnam3Allahabad2Dehradun2Rajasthan1Guwahati1Patna1Calcutta1Jodhpur1Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 1488Section 40A(3)8Section 143(3)5Section 1474Section 2503Addition to Income3Disallowance3Section 36(1)(iii)2Section 362Deduction

SH. VARINDER KUMAR SOUL,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2), JALANDHAR

ITA 451/ASR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 451(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pan: Cvips 5218R

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Ghulam Mustafa (D. R.)
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

220 (P&H). Be that as it may, there is equally no doubt that the AO had a valid reason to believe escapement from assessment qua rental income. The same is sufficient for him to assume jurisdiction to reopen the assessment u/s. 147. No contention in its 4 ITA No.451 (Asr)/2017(A.Y.2012-13) Varinder Kumar Soul v. ITO respect

2
Reopening of Assessment2
Depreciation2

SHRI ARNESH KUMAR SHAKAR EX. MLA,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, DASUYA

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 6/ASR/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 54Section 54F

220, the relevant paragraph is extracted as follows: - “14. In view of the above discussion, we are satisfied that the letter dated 30-7- 1998 issued by the Assessing Officer insofar as it relates to matters unconnected with the issue of depreciation as also the directions issued by the Dy. Commissioner under section 144A of the Act dated

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. SH. DARSHAN KUMAR MAHAJAN, PATHANKOT

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 566/ASR/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 566(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Pan: Adjpm7623B

For Appellant: Sh. A. N. Mishra (D. R.)For Respondent: Sh. J. S. Bhasin (Adv.)
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 40A(3)

220 (supra). The issue arises only due to the amendments to the provision since, which makes it materially different from the provision before the Apex Court as well as the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court. The Hon'ble Court admits this on the said discovery, yet, refrains from varying its decision, pronounced in the open court, noting that the parties

MEASAGE TAU AGRO SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,FARIDKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(2), FEROZEPUR

In the result the ground no

ITA 324/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(3)

2) of the Act. We find that the Assessing Officer has brought no material on record to show that howthe interest paid by the assessee was excessive by comparing it with the market rate of interest on loan on the date of taking of the loan by the assessee. In absence of the same, in our considered view, the disallowance

MEASAGE.TAU AGRO SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,FARIDKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(4), FARIDKOT

In the result the ground no

ITA 325/ASR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

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

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(3)

2) of the Act. We find that the Assessing Officer has brought no material on record to show that howthe interest paid by the assessee was excessive by comparing it with the market rate of interest on loan on the date of taking of the loan by the assessee. In absence of the same, in our considered view, the disallowance