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.

17 results for “depreciation”+ Section 69Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai49Delhi47Jaipur20Bangalore17Ahmedabad12Pune9Indore7Chandigarh7Cochin7Rajkot6Hyderabad6Surat5Visakhapatnam5Guwahati3Chennai3Amritsar3SC2Kolkata2Dehradun1Allahabad1Kerala1Karnataka1

Key Topics

Section 153A35Addition to Income17Section 1112Section 115B12Section 1399Section 688Section 1548Section 132(4)8Section 2(22)(e)8Deemed Dividend

M/S SHETTY CONSTRUCTIONS ,KALABURAGI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-(1), KALABURAGI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 286/BANG/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodiaita No.286(Bang)/2019 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Shetty Constructions, Shetty Enclave, Aland Road, Kalaburagi-585 103 Panno.Aaffs1811G Appellant Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-(1), Kalaburagi Respondent Appellant By : Shri Sreehari Kutsa, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl.Cit

For Appellant: Shri Sreehari Kutsa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT
Section 133ASection 142ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 69

depreciation was also claimed on this asset. This fact was not disputed by the assessee. The Shah Bazar Site was not at all shown in the balance sheet. All the constructions under consideration, including the Fun Junction Multiplex which was classified as fixed asset in the balance sheet of the assessee, were built on this site only. There is nothing

8
Exemption5
Depreciation5

M/S. MANGALORE ROUND TABLE TRUST,MANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2472/BANG/2019[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2020AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodiaita No.286(Bang)/2019 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Shetty Constructions, Shetty Enclave, Aland Road, Kalaburagi-585 103 Panno.Aaffs1811G Appellant Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-(1), Kalaburagi Respondent Appellant By : Shri Sreehari Kutsa, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl.Cit

For Appellant: Shri Sreehari Kutsa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT
Section 133ASection 142ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 69

depreciation was also claimed on this asset. This fact was not disputed by the assessee. The Shah Bazar Site was not at all shown in the balance sheet. All the constructions under consideration, including the Fun Junction Multiplex which was classified as fixed asset in the balance sheet of the assessee, were built on this site only. There is nothing

GOPAL S. PANDITH vs. DCIT,

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1186/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra, CIT (D.R)
Section 139Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 234Section 548

Section 69B of the Act. The assessee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer before the CIT (Appeals) but could not succeed. 53. Before us, the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee has submitted that when there is an addition on account of Pooja income of Rs.20 lakhs then the benefit of telescoping against the addition of unexplained investment could

BHARATH BEEDI WORKS PVT. LTD.,,MANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2007-08 is also dismissed

ITA 1903/BANG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Sukumar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 43B

Depreciation on Lorries being restricted @ 25% as against 40% claimed by the appellant as per schedule, enclosed Ground No. 2 Part of arrears of wages disallowed u/s 43 B The assessing officer has disallowed a sum of Rs 1,99,23,883/- as excess claim of provision u/s 43B of the Act. It is submitted that the arrears of wages

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 809/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.809 To 812/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 To 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 11Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 154Section 68

69B & 69D of the Act have not been invoked in the assessment order and also erred in law and ITA Nos.809 to 812/Bang/2022 M/s. Sri Devaraj Urs Educational Trust, Kolar Page 2 of 11 facts in holding that section 154 of the Act is not applicable. In addition to this, assessee is challenging the non-granting of depreciation

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 810/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.809 To 812/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 To 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 11Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 154Section 68

69B & 69D of the Act have not been invoked in the assessment order and also erred in law and ITA Nos.809 to 812/Bang/2022 M/s. Sri Devaraj Urs Educational Trust, Kolar Page 2 of 11 facts in holding that section 154 of the Act is not applicable. In addition to this, assessee is challenging the non-granting of depreciation

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 811/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.809 To 812/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 To 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 11Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 154Section 68

69B & 69D of the Act have not been invoked in the assessment order and also erred in law and ITA Nos.809 to 812/Bang/2022 M/s. Sri Devaraj Urs Educational Trust, Kolar Page 2 of 11 facts in holding that section 154 of the Act is not applicable. In addition to this, assessee is challenging the non-granting of depreciation

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 812/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Mar 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.809 To 812/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 To 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 11Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 154Section 68

69B & 69D of the Act have not been invoked in the assessment order and also erred in law and ITA Nos.809 to 812/Bang/2022 M/s. Sri Devaraj Urs Educational Trust, Kolar Page 2 of 11 facts in holding that section 154 of the Act is not applicable. In addition to this, assessee is challenging the non-granting of depreciation

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 166/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

69B of the Act. The assessee filed letter dated 30.6.2009 stating that the so-called sale agreement is nothing but a photocopy of signed agreement dated 4.12.2004 and in order to induce him to pay Rs.20,100 per gunta for 3 acres of land, this document was prepared. However, he has not agreed for the price offered by Mr. Ramdas

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 167/BANG/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

69B of the Act. The assessee filed letter dated 30.6.2009 stating that the so-called sale agreement is nothing but a photocopy of signed agreement dated 4.12.2004 and in order to induce him to pay Rs.20,100 per gunta for 3 acres of land, this document was prepared. However, he has not agreed for the price offered by Mr. Ramdas

MRS. SHAHANAZ MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 1088/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

69B of the Act. The assessee filed letter dated 30.6.2009 stating that the so-called sale agreement is nothing but a photocopy of signed agreement dated 4.12.2004 and in order to induce him to pay Rs.20,100 per gunta for 3 acres of land, this document was prepared. However, he has not agreed for the price offered by Mr. Ramdas

ACIT, MANGALORE vs. MRS. SHAHANAZ MOHIUDDIN, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 1118/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

69B of the Act. The assessee filed letter dated 30.6.2009 stating that the so-called sale agreement is nothing but a photocopy of signed agreement dated 4.12.2004 and in order to induce him to pay Rs.20,100 per gunta for 3 acres of land, this document was prepared. However, he has not agreed for the price offered by Mr. Ramdas

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,,MANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 1223/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

69B of the Act. The assessee filed letter dated 30.6.2009 stating that the so-called sale agreement is nothing but a photocopy of signed agreement dated 4.12.2004 and in order to induce him to pay Rs.20,100 per gunta for 3 acres of land, this document was prepared. However, he has not agreed for the price offered by Mr. Ramdas

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 165/BANG/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

69B of the Act. The assessee filed letter dated 30.6.2009 stating that the so-called sale agreement is nothing but a photocopy of signed agreement dated 4.12.2004 and in order to induce him to pay Rs.20,100 per gunta for 3 acres of land, this document was prepared. However, he has not agreed for the price offered by Mr. Ramdas

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 164/BANG/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

69B of the Act. The assessee filed letter dated 30.6.2009 stating that the so-called sale agreement is nothing but a photocopy of signed agreement dated 4.12.2004 and in order to induce him to pay Rs.20,100 per gunta for 3 acres of land, this document was prepared. However, he has not agreed for the price offered by Mr. Ramdas

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 163/BANG/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

69B of the Act. The assessee filed letter dated 30.6.2009 stating that the so-called sale agreement is nothing but a photocopy of signed agreement dated 4.12.2004 and in order to induce him to pay Rs.20,100 per gunta for 3 acres of land, this document was prepared. However, he has not agreed for the price offered by Mr. Ramdas

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE vs. SRI B G CHANNAPPA , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2104/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 234Section 69B

section 153A of the Act, have no application and therefore, the impugned order passed deserves to be cancelled. 2.1 Without prejudice to the above, there is no justification to issue the warrant to search the premises of the appellant as the conditions specified in terms of Sec. 132[1] of the Act did not exist and therefore the search action