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 97clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,445Delhi1,150Bangalore514Chennai390Kolkata240Ahmedabad231Jaipur124Hyderabad90Raipur60Amritsar50Chandigarh49Indore48Pune46Lucknow40Visakhapatnam29Rajkot24Cochin21Guwahati19Ranchi18Karnataka15SC15Surat10Nagpur9Cuttack8Jodhpur6Telangana6Patna5Dehradun4Allahabad4Calcutta3Agra2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Punjab & Haryana1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Kerala1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 153C3Section 14A3Section 1473Addition to Income3Section 260A2Section 32(1)(iia)2Depreciation2

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)

97,36,94,328/- which was processed under section 143(1) on 08.01.2004. The assessment was taken up for scrutiny and accordingly notice under section 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

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/343/2017
HC Calcutta
14 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)

depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act and allowed the deduction of Rs.6,93,39,027/- for the assessment year 2010-11 and its purported findings in this regard are arbitrary, unreasonable and perverse ? c) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the additions of Rs.5,97

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

97,000/- with M/s. Nissan Developers and Properties Pvt. Ltd. and Poddar Projects Ltd. respectively and both these companies are specified persons of the assessee. Therefore, the Assessing Officer held that these amounts are to be taxed separately at Maximum Marginal Rate in terms of the proviso to Section 164(2) of the Act. Further, the Assessing Officer pointed