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.

63 results for “depreciation”+ Section 36(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,595Delhi2,410Bangalore951Chennai857Kolkata479Ahmedabad400Jaipur222Hyderabad186Raipur139Chandigarh124Pune106Karnataka103Indore81Amritsar63Cochin53Visakhapatnam49Lucknow45Surat44Rajkot43SC42Ranchi36Telangana33Jodhpur26Guwahati25Cuttack21Kerala21Nagpur19Dehradun8Calcutta8Patna6Varanasi6Agra5Rajasthan5Allahabad3Panaji3Punjab & Haryana3Jabalpur2D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1Tripura1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 14466Addition to Income57Disallowance56Depreciation48Natural Justice36Section 250(6)34Section 143(3)29Section 80I27Section 3624Section 250

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

36(1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to section 43(b) on the other. If one goes by the legislative history of these provisions, what is discernible is that Parliament's endeavour in introducing Section 43B [which opens with its non- obstante clause] was to primarily ensure that deductions otherwise permissible and hitherto claimed on mercantile basis, were

Showing 1–20 of 63 · Page 1 of 4

22
Section 35A20
Section 143(1)19

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

36(1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to section 43(b) on the other. If one goes by the legislative history of these provisions, what is discernible is that Parliament's endeavour in introducing Section 43B [which opens with its non- obstante clause] was to primarily ensure that deductions otherwise permissible and hitherto claimed on mercantile basis, were

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

36(1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to section 43(b) on the other. If one goes by the legislative history of these provisions, what is discernible is that Parliament's endeavour in introducing Section 43B [which opens with its non- obstante clause] was to primarily ensure that deductions otherwise permissible and hitherto claimed on mercantile basis, were

M/S. RAMCO ENGG WORKS ,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (1), JALANDHAR

In the result, ITA No. 261/Asr/2022 is dismissed and ITA No

ITA 253/ASR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

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

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250oSection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

36(1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to section 43(b) on the other. If one goes by the legislative history of these provisions, what is discernible is that Parliament's endeavour in introducing Section 43B [which opens with its non- obstante clause] was to primarily ensure that deductions otherwise permissible and hitherto claimed on mercantile basis, were

SHRI SACHIN KAPUR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3 (2), JALANDHAR

In the result, ITA No. 261/Asr/2022 is dismissed and ITA No

ITA 261/ASR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

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

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250oSection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

36(1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to section 43(b) on the other. If one goes by the legislative history of these provisions, what is discernible is that Parliament's endeavour in introducing Section 43B [which opens with its non- obstante clause] was to primarily ensure that deductions otherwise permissible and hitherto claimed on mercantile basis, were

M/S BELTEX RUBBER INDIA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (1), JALANDHAR

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

ITA 9/ASR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

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

Section 143(1)Section 250o

36(1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to section 43(b) on the other. If one goes by the legislative history of these provisions, what is discernible is that Parliament's endeavour in introducing Section 43B [which opens with its non- obstante clause] was to primarily ensure that deductions otherwise permissible and hitherto claimed on mercantile basis, were

M/S BELTEX RUBBER INDIA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 1 (1) , JALANDHAR

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

ITA 8/ASR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

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

Section 143(1)Section 250o

36(1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to section 43(b) on the other. If one goes by the legislative history of these provisions, what is discernible is that Parliament's endeavour in introducing Section 43B [which opens with its non- obstante clause] was to primarily ensure that deductions otherwise permissible and hitherto claimed on mercantile basis, were

NAVODIA TIMES PRIVATE LIMITED ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

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

ITA 192/ASR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

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

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234CSection 250oSection 36

36(1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to section 43(b) on the other. If one goes by the legislative history of these provisions, what is discernible is that Parliament's endeavour in introducing Section 43B [which opens with its non- obstante clause] was to primarily ensure that deductions otherwise permissible and hitherto claimed on mercantile basis, were

ATC LOGISTICAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, AMRITSAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 241/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 115JSection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 40ASection 40A(7)

36(1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to section 43(b) on the other. If one goes by the legislative history of these provisions, what is discernible is that Parliament's endeavour in introducing Section 43B [which opens with its non- obstante clause] was to primarily ensure that deductions otherwise permissible and hitherto claimed on mercantile basis, were

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. MEASAGE BHAGWATI LACTO VEGETARIAN EXPORTS (P) LIMITED, FEROZEPUR CANTT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1/ASR/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: None (Written submission)For Respondent: Sh. Rohit Mehra, CIT DR
Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)

section 36(1)(vii) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the record of the appellant- company filed return of income declaring net income of Rs.11,95,70,120/- on 31.03.2017. During the course of scrutiny proceedings, the AO noticed that as per the audited profit and loss account, the assessee had earned

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

36 are as under: “1. That, the orders passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) vide orders dated 22.03.2024 is illegal, uncalled for and against the law & facts. I.T.A. No. 267/Asr/2024 2 Assessment Year: 2018-19 2. That, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has sustained the additions merely on conjectures and surmises without any legal basis

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

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

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 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 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

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 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 25/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 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 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