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.

11 results for “depreciation”+ Section 143(1)(ii)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,990Delhi2,455Bangalore984Chennai756Kolkata663Ahmedabad591Jaipur295Hyderabad281Pune190Chandigarh176Indore155Surat144Raipur123Cochin122Amritsar100Karnataka99Visakhapatnam82Rajkot74Cuttack65Lucknow61Nagpur50Jodhpur35Guwahati29SC26Telangana24Panaji22Ranchi20Dehradun15Agra14Patna14Allahabad12Kerala12Calcutta11Varanasi8Punjab & Haryana3Jabalpur3Orissa1Rajasthan1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1

Key Topics

Section 26314Section 143(3)10Section 260A7Depreciation7Deduction6Section 80I4Section 1474Section 1434Addition to Income4Section 32

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION & TRA vs. JOY PARTNERSHIP MINING CENTRE

ITAT/71/2018HC Calcutta15 Nov 2021

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260A

ii) of sub-section (1) of section 72 or section 73 or section 74 or sub-section (3) of section 74A. (4) Every company to which this section applies, shall furnish a report in the prescribed form from an accountant as defined in the Explanation below sub-section (2) of section 288, certifying that the book profit has been computed

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) , KOLKATA vs. B.P.PODDAR FOUNDATION FOR EDUCATION

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the

3
Disallowance3
Section 92B2
ITAT/143/2021HC Calcutta13 Sept 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 11(5)Section 13(1)(b)Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(1)(d)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

ii) and Section 13(1)(d) of the Act., for such reason the assessment was reopened under Section 147 of the Act by issuance of notice under Section 148 dated 13.03.2016. Subsequently, notices under Section 143(2) and Section 142(1) were issued. Pursuant to such notices the assessee through their authorized representative appeared before the Assessing Officer and produced

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ITC LIMITED

Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated

ITA/125/2018HC Calcutta27 Jun 2024

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI,HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter Page 5 of 77 referred to as ‘the Act, 1961’) relating to the assessment year 2006-07. 6. In appeal filed by the respondent ITC before the CIT[Appeal], the appeal was allowed and the receipt of the aforesaid amount of Rs.32.42 crores was held to be a capital receipt

PRINCIPAL COMM OF INCOME TAX, ASANSOL vs. M/S EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD

Accordingly, the appeal fails and it is dismissed

ITAT/230/2017HC Calcutta14 Dec 2021

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 260Section 32Section 40A(9)

143(2) was issued on 07.10.2004. Subsequently, notice under section 142(1) along with a questionnaire was issued on 31.12.2004, the case was discussed with the authorized representative of the assessee. The Assessing Officer on considering the following issues completed the Assessment by order dated 30.03.2006. The different heads under which the assessments were completed are as here under

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

ITAT/211/2022HC Calcutta23 Dec 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 263Section 35

143(3) of the Act. Further it was pointed out that in the notice dated 08.10.2018 issued under Section 142(1) of the Act specific details were called for on the said issue which was furnished by the assessee by the letters dated 20.11.2018 and 03.12.2018. It was further stated that the assessing officer examined the ITAT

M/S C AND E LIMITED vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KOLKATA 4 KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the order

ITAT/135/2023HC Calcutta02 Aug 2023

Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 263Section 801CSection 80I

ii) of the Act and that the Assessing officer had allowed excess depreciation. The assessee furnished their written submissions and appeared before the PCIT in person. It was contended that proceedings under Section 263 of the Act had been initiated without considering the fact that the claim for deduction was for the 2nd year of the substantial expansion

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) KOLKATA vs. INTEGRATED EDUCATION & RESEARCH CENTRE FOR ENGINEERING & MAN

The appeal stands dismissed

ITAT/276/2017HC Calcutta28 Jul 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak Date : 28Th July, 2022 Appearance : Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. ….For Appellant Mr. Dwip Raj Basu, Adv. …For Respondent The Court :- This Appeal By The Revenue Filed Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, For Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 1St June, 2016, Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “C” Bench, Kolkata In Ita No. 620/Kol/2016 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration. I) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Tribunal Erred In Law In Not Considering That Allowing Depreciation In Respect Of A Depreciable Asset For Which The Assessee

Section 11(6)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 263Section 32Section 35(2)(iv)

depreciable asset for which the assessee 2 has already claimed deduction under section 35(2)(iv) of the Income Tax Act being acquired for charitable purpose is permissible under section 32 of the Act and whether the same would amount to double deduction ? ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal erred

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 3, KOLKATA vs. M/S EIH LIMITED

In the result, the appeal (ITA/62/2018) is dismissed

ITA/62/2018HC Calcutta20 Dec 2023

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI,HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ

Section 143(3)

1. Heard Sri Prithu Dudheria, learned counsel for the appellant / Income Tax Department and Sri Akhilesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee. 2. This appeal was admitted by order dated 08.06.2018, on the following substantial questions of law:- “[i] Whether the decision of the Tribunal in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer passed under Section 143

BHAG CHAND CHHABRA A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 12

In the result, the appeal (ITA/62/2018) is dismissed

ITAT/62/2018HC Calcutta11 Nov 2021

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 143(3)

1. Heard Sri Prithu Dudheria, learned counsel for the appellant / Income Tax Department and Sri Akhilesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee. 2. This appeal was admitted by order dated 08.06.2018, on the following substantial questions of law:- “[i] Whether the decision of the Tribunal in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer passed under Section 143

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2, KOLKATA vs. M/S KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and it is held that substantial

ITAT/67/2022HC Calcutta20 Dec 2022

Bench: :

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 260ASection 68Section 80ISection 92B

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, stating that the said ground was not relevant to the order of the lower authorities ? We have heard Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr. J.P. Khaitan, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent/assessee. It is pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee that

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S GANESH REALTY AND MALL DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD

Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same stands dismissed

ITAT/66/2021HC Calcutta11 Feb 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 143(3)Section 260A

1, KOLKATA -Versus- M/S. GANESH REALTY AND MALL DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD. Appearance: Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. ...for the appellant. Mr. Vivek Murarka, Adv. For the respondent. BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM -And- The Hon’ble JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 11th February, 2022. The Court : We have heard Mr. Tilak Mitra, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue