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.

10 results for “depreciation”+ Section 18clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,525Delhi3,257Bangalore1,366Chennai1,130Kolkata716Ahmedabad475Hyderabad285Jaipur267Karnataka195Pune193Chandigarh155Raipur147Indore116Surat105Amritsar99Cochin79Visakhapatnam75SC68Rajkot66Lucknow55Cuttack50Ranchi42Jodhpur40Telangana37Nagpur33Guwahati29Kerala18Dehradun16Panaji12Agra10Calcutta10Patna9Allahabad6Varanasi6Jabalpur5Gauhati2Rajasthan2MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Tripura1

Key Topics

Section 26312Section 80I8Section 260A7Section 286Addition to Income6Depreciation5Section 143(3)4Section 1474Section 1434Deduction

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

Depreciation disallowed as per Rs. 18,74,034/- Discussion above _______________ Net Profit Rs. 77,41,629/- Less: Accumulated loss Brough forward from Previous Year Rs. 2,88,71,747/- Loss to be carried forward for Rs.(-) 2,11,30,118/- Next year Tax, thereon NIL Assessed u/s. 143 (3) as above Please issue Demand Notice and copy of the order

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

4
Section 115W2
Reopening of Assessment2
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

18, 2013 under Section 142(1) of the Act. The notice contains a questionnaire contained as many as 23 queries of which Query No. 21 directs the assessee to furnish details with supporting evidence in respect of claim under Chapter VIA of the Act. The assessee by reply dated 03.07.2014 furnished the required details and also enclosed the copy

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOL-I, KOL vs. M/S. JINDAL INDIA LTD.

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue

ITA/95/2011HC Calcutta16 Mar 2023

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 16Th March, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Smarajit Roychowdhury, Adv. ...For The Appellant. Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjoy Bhowmick, Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. ...For The Respondent. The Court : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’ For Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30Th November, 2010 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Kolkata (The Tribunal) In Ita No.368 & 369/Kol/2010 Years 2005- 06 & 2006-07. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration:

Section 2(18)(b)Section 2(22)(e)Section 260ASection 31

18)(b)(B)(c) and Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act ? We have heard Mr. Smarajit Roychowdhury, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr. J. P. Khaitan, learner Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Sanjoy Bhowmick and Ms. Swapna Das, learned Advocates for the respondent/assessee. It is not in dispute that the tax effect

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)

depreciation? b) Whether of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, ITAT 230 of 2017 Page 3 of 14 was justified in reversing the finding of CIT (Appeals) in deleting the addition

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

18. Learned counsel for the respondent has heavily relied upon the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/S. Techno Shares & Stocks Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iv 2010 V-327 ITR 323 SC (para 19) and Section 32 (1) (II) of the Act 1961 to contend that depreciation

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOL-III vs. M/S. KOTHARI GLOBAL LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/60/2014HC Calcutta30 Nov 2023

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

Section 263Section 28Section 41Section 41(1)

18 of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced below : “5) The short point for consideration before this Court is whether in the present facts and circumstances of the case the sum of Rs.57,74,064/- due by the Respondent to Kaiser Jeep Corporation which later on waived off by the lender constitute taxable income of the Respondent

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL -1, KOLKATA vs. SHALIMAR PELLET FEEDS LTD.

In the result the appeals in so far as the assessment

ITAT/199/2018HC Calcutta07 Dec 2021

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

For Appellant: Ms. Sucharita Biswas, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv
Section 153ASection 260ASection 263Section 80I

depreciation on lorries was rejected. Consequently, the CIT came to the conclusion that the order of the assessing officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The assessee carried the matter on appeal to the tribunal contending that before the CIT the assessee in their reply to the notice under Section 263 of the Act had brought

PRINCIPAL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S SHALIMAR PELLET FEEDS LIMITED

In the result, the substantial questions of law framed

ITAT/29/2021HC Calcutta04 Apr 2022

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

Section 2Section 260ASection 40A(2)(b)Section 80I

depreciation amounting to 3 Rs.14,68,279/- in the Assessment Year 2009-10 as claimed by the assessee since the same is entitled to 15% on lorries, which was not used for the business of hire ?” We have heard Ms. Smita Das De, learned standing counsel for the revenue and Mr. Abhratosh Majumdar, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Swapna

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

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

depreciation etc. Aggrieved by such order the assessee preferred an appeal before the leaned Tribunal. It was contended before the Tribunal that the CIT(A) failed to take note of the material irregularity committed by the Assessing Officer while initiating proceedings under Section 148 of the Act for reopening assessment under Section 147 without noting the vital fact that

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, KOLKATA vs. MCLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LTD.

Would be that the agricultural income itself would become liable

ITAT/378/2017HC Calcutta30 Nov 2021

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam A N D The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date: November 30, 2021. Appearance : Mr. P. K. Bhowmik, Adv. Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. … For The Appellant Mr. Asim Chaudhury, Adv. …For The Respondent The Court : This Appeal By The Revenue Filed Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Brevity) Is Against The Order Dated 8Th October, 2015 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “C” Bench, Kolkata In Ita Nos. 262 & 263/Kol/2013 For The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2009-10. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration:

Section 112Section 115WSection 260A

depreciation “actually allowed.” Hence we find no merit in the civil appeals filed by the Department.” The next judgment cited by Mr. Majumdar in the case of Jayshree Tea and Industries Limited vs. Union of India reported in 285 ITR 506 (Cal) wherein a Division Bench of this Court held that Rule 8 was applicable to the additional income