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.

3 results for “depreciation”+ Section 35(2)(iv)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,496Delhi1,375Bangalore724Chennai371Kolkata215Ahmedabad185Jaipur164Hyderabad138Raipur133Chandigarh88Karnataka67Pune58Indore58Amritsar56Surat46Visakhapatnam39Rajkot38Lucknow30SC29Cochin25Cuttack23Guwahati22Kerala14Telangana12Jodhpur11Nagpur9Varanasi6Dehradun5Allahabad4Panaji3Calcutta3Jabalpur2Patna2Rajasthan2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Agra1D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 2634Section 323Section 35(2)(iv)2Depreciation2Addition to Income2

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

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

35 ITR 148 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur vs. Rai Bahadur Jairam Vaiji & Others); [para 11]; IV. (1964) 53 ITR 261 : 1964 SCC OnLine SC 205 (Kettlewell Bullen And Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta); [paras 15, 20, 21, 26 and 36]; Page 45 of 77 V. [1999] 3 SCC 127 (Oberoi Hotel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner

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)

35,22,000/- for the A.Y. 2004-05 on account of ‘HRA Expenses Arrear’? ITAT 230 of 2017 Page 5 of 14 3. The assessee company filed its return of loss on 21.10.2003 disclosing the total loss of Rs. 97,36,94,328/- which was processed under section 143(1) on 08.01.2004. The assessment was taken up for scrutiny