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.

6 results for “depreciation”+ Section 254(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai999Delhi669Chennai237Bangalore209Kolkata136Surat85Ahmedabad78Jaipur60Hyderabad59Chandigarh49Raipur36Karnataka28Pune27Lucknow26Indore20SC13Cochin12Guwahati9Amritsar9Nagpur9Rajkot8Telangana7Panaji7Calcutta6Agra3Cuttack3Varanasi3Kerala2Ranchi2Jabalpur2Dehradun2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Visakhapatnam1Patna1

Key Topics

Depreciation6Addition to Income6Section 14A5Section 260A4Section 32(1)(ii)4Deduction4Section 153C3Section 2542Section 32(1)(iia)2Section 37(1)

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, KOLKATA vs. HINDUSTAN GUM AND CHEMICALS LTD

ITAT/40/2020HC Calcutta13 Jan 2021

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING),HON'BLE JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA ROY

Section 14ASection 32(1)(ii)Section 37(1)

depreciation without considering the third proviso to section 32(1)(ii) which came into effect on 1st April, 2016 by virtue of the Finance Act, 2016 without retrospective effect ? (iv) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in properly not applying the test of application of ITAT/40/2020 3

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-5, KOLKATA vs. M/S MERLIN RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED

ITA/40/2020HC Calcutta10 Dec 2020

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE I. P. MUKERJI,HON'BLE JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN

2
Section 312
Condonation of Delay2
Section 14ASection 32(1)(ii)Section 37(1)

depreciation without considering the third proviso to section 32(1)(ii) which came into effect on 1st April, 2016 by virtue of the Finance Act, 2016 without retrospective effect ? (iv) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in properly not applying the test of application of ITAT/40/2020 3

M/S. DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-IV, & ANR.

The appeal is allowed

ITA/845/2008HC Calcutta09 Feb 2023

Bench: :

Section 254Section 260A

depreciation could have been allowed when the assessee failed to make such a claim in the original return. The learned Tribunal dismissed the assessee’s appeal by referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Goetze India Limited vs. C.I.T, 2006 (284) ITR 323 (SC) and held that such a claim made by the assessee having

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL-2,KOLKATA vs. M/S. DHANSAR ENGINEERING CO.PVT LTD.

In the result, we find that question no

ITAT/343/2017HC Calcutta14 Dec 2021

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

Section 14ASection 153CSection 260ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 32A(2)(b)

3 2008-09 are below tax effect. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed in so far as the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 on the ground of low tax effect. This leaves us to decide the case of the department for the remaining two assessment years, namely, 2009-10 and 2010-11. The first substantial question which has been

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S RAMKRISHNA FORGINGS LTD

In the result the appeal is partly allowed

ITAT/258/2022HC Calcutta08 Feb 2023

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 8Th February, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. …For Appellant Mr. S.M. Surana, Adv. Ms. Sapna Das, Adv. Mr. S. Das, Adv. …For Respondent

Section 260ASection 36Section 37Section 43(5)Section 43B

depreciation was claimed in preceding assessment year on new plant and machinery which was put to use for less than 180 days, ignoring the reasoned order of the A.O. and relying on the assessee’s submission ? ii) WHETHER the Learned Tribunal has erred in law in holding that forex loss is allowance as expenditure under section

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

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 for the assessment year