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.

139 results for “depreciation”+ Section 3(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai5,792Delhi5,106Chennai2,059Bangalore1,896Kolkata1,274Ahmedabad750Hyderabad464Pune386Jaipur376Karnataka343Chandigarh238Raipur205Surat197Cochin173Indore164Amritsar139Visakhapatnam118Cuttack106SC100Lucknow100Rajkot99Telangana84Nagpur67Jodhpur65Ranchi57Calcutta45Guwahati43Patna40Kerala36Panaji33Dehradun30Agra23Allahabad22Punjab & Haryana16Jabalpur12Orissa10Varanasi9Rajasthan6Gauhati2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1S. B. SINHA MARKANDEY KATJU1Tripura1Himachal Pradesh1

Key Topics

Addition to Income89Section 12A87Section 14466Disallowance66Section 250(6)62Section 14861Section 143(3)59Depreciation58Natural Justice47Section 153A

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)

3 to section 80G. b. It is humbly submitted that Hon’ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction or power to travel beyond the impugned Order or subject-matter of the appeal. Power of the Hon’ble are provided in Section 254(1) which reads as follows:- “(1) The Appellate Tribunal may, after giving both parties to the appeal an opportunity

Showing 1–20 of 139 · Page 1 of 7

36
Section 1135
Deduction32

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

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

3. The assessee has also raised the following grounds: “1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the partial disallowance on account of depreciation claimed in respect of Capital Subsidy amounting to Rs. 23, 16, 393/- and such disallowance is entirely misconceived and is incorrect and has arbitrarily been made. 1.1 That while doing

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

3. The assessee has also raised the following grounds: “1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the partial disallowance on account of depreciation claimed in respect of Capital Subsidy amounting to Rs. 23, 16, 393/- and such disallowance is entirely misconceived and is incorrect and has arbitrarily been made. 1.1 That while doing

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

3. The assessee has also raised the following grounds: “1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the partial disallowance on account of depreciation claimed in respect of Capital Subsidy amounting to Rs. 23, 16, 393/- and such disallowance is entirely misconceived and is incorrect and has arbitrarily been made. 1.1 That while doing

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

3. The assessee has also raised the following grounds: “1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the partial disallowance on account of depreciation claimed in respect of Capital Subsidy amounting to Rs. 23, 16, 393/- and such disallowance is entirely misconceived and is incorrect and has arbitrarily been made. 1.1 That while doing

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

3. The assessee has also raised the following grounds: “1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the partial disallowance on account of depreciation claimed in respect of Capital Subsidy amounting to Rs. 23, 16, 393/- and such disallowance is entirely misconceived and is incorrect and has arbitrarily been made. 1.1 That while doing

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

3. The assessee has also raised the following grounds: “1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the partial disallowance on account of depreciation claimed in respect of Capital Subsidy amounting to Rs. 23, 16, 393/- and such disallowance is entirely misconceived and is incorrect and has arbitrarily been made. 1.1 That while doing

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

3. The assessee has also raised the following grounds: “1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the partial disallowance on account of depreciation claimed in respect of Capital Subsidy amounting to Rs. 23, 16, 393/- and such disallowance is entirely misconceived and is incorrect and has arbitrarily been made. 1.1 That while doing

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

3. The assessee has also raised the following grounds: “1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the partial disallowance on account of depreciation claimed in respect of Capital Subsidy amounting to Rs. 23, 16, 393/- and such disallowance is entirely misconceived and is incorrect and has arbitrarily been made. 1.1 That while doing

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

3. The assessee has also raised the following grounds: “1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the partial disallowance on account of depreciation claimed in respect of Capital Subsidy amounting to Rs. 23, 16, 393/- and such disallowance is entirely misconceived and is incorrect and has arbitrarily been made. 1.1 That while doing

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

3. The assessee has also raised the following grounds: “1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the partial disallowance on account of depreciation claimed in respect of Capital Subsidy amounting to Rs. 23, 16, 393/- and such disallowance is entirely misconceived and is incorrect and has arbitrarily been made. 1.1 That while doing

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)

section 234B of the Income tax Act, 1961 when there is no default on the part of the assessee for payment of advance tax during the financial year, which has not even been alleged by the AO. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellant acted bona fide and could not visualize positive income for the year when

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)

section 234B of the Income tax Act, 1961 when there is no default on the part of the assessee for payment of advance tax during the financial year, which has not even been alleged by the AO. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellant acted bona fide and could not visualize positive income for the year when

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)

section 234B of the Income tax Act, 1961 when there is no default on the part of the assessee for payment of advance tax during the financial year, which has not even been alleged by the AO. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellant acted bona fide and could not visualize positive income for the year when

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)

section 234B of the Income tax Act, 1961 when there is no default on the part of the assessee for payment of advance tax during the financial year, which has not even been alleged by the AO. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellant acted bona fide and could not visualize positive income for the year when

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)

section 234B of the Income tax Act, 1961 when there is no default on the part of the assessee for payment of advance tax during the financial year, which has not even been alleged by the AO. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellant acted bona fide and could not visualize positive income for the year when

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)

section 234B of the Income tax Act, 1961 when there is no default on the part of the assessee for payment of advance tax during the financial year, which has not even been alleged by the AO. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellant acted bona fide and could not visualize positive income for the year when

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)

section 234B of the Income tax Act, 1961 when there is no default on the part of the assessee for payment of advance tax during the financial year, which has not even been alleged by the AO. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellant acted bona fide and could not visualize positive income for the year when

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