Search: depreciation | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

212 results for “depreciation”

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai6,433 Delhi5,691 Chennai2,452 Bangalore2,070 Kolkata1,447 Ahmedabad723 Pune435 Hyderabad410 Jaipur366 Karnataka354 Chandigarh212 Cochin203 Raipur198 Indore164 Surat162 Amritsar139 Visakhapatnam117 Cuttack102 SC102 Lucknow99 Rajkot98 Telangana91 Nagpur76 Jodhpur66 Ranchi61 Calcutta47 Guwahati47 Patna42 Kerala39 Dehradun32 Panaji26 Agra21 Punjab & Haryana18 Allahabad11 Varanasi11 Orissa10 Jabalpur9 Rajasthan7 Gauhati2 A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1 D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1 MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1 S. B. SINHA MARKANDEY KATJU1 Tripura1 Himachal Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)56 Section 26355 Addition to Income54 Depreciation36 Section 14733 Section 14830 Section 80I29 Disallowance29 Section 153A27 Deduction

M/S PAGRO FROZEN FOODS PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-2(3), CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1076/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Krishan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253

depreciation of 2012-13. The balance depreciation is as under: A.Y Amount of brought forward Amount of dep. Set Balance

A.B. SUGARS LIMITED,PUNJAB vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Showing 1–20 of 212 · Page 1 of 11

...

19

Section 143(2)18

ITA 299/CHANDI/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Singla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80ISection 92C

depreciation as per Companies Act, 2013 and depreciation as per Income Tax Act, 1964 were provided in the Balance Sheet

A.B. SUGARS LIMITED,PUNJAB vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 300/CHANDI/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Singla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80ISection 92C

depreciation as per Companies Act, 2013 and depreciation as per Income Tax Act, 1964 were provided in the Balance Sheet

DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER PVT. LTD., NABHA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 121/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 121/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Dcit, M/S Glaxosmithkline Circle 1(1), बनाम Consumer Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh Patiala Road, Vs. Nabha. Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aafcg8415R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate With Sh. Neeraj Jain, Advocate & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca (Virtual) राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate with Sh. Neeraj Jain, Advocate and Ms. Somya Jain, For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR

depreciation allowable as per Income Tax Act, 1961 has given reason as, the company has claimed depreciation on assets acquired

BABA HIRA SINGH BHATTAL INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY,LEHRAGAGA vs. DCIT, (E), C-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 870/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Aman Parti, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sharma, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 10Section 11

depreciation as application of income. Accordingly, the disallowance of depreciation amounting to Rs.51,69,258/- as application of income is hereby

SUDARSHAN JEANS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO, AMBALA

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 1070/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Goel (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)(iia)

depreciation on such additions. However, Ld. AO rejected the aforesaid submissions and disallowed excess depreciation & additional depreciation of Rs.58.42 Lacs

NAHAR POLY FILMS LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 458/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 458/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Nahar Poly Films Limited, Vs. The Dcit, बनाम 375, Industrial Area-A, Circle-1, Ludhiana 141003 Aayakar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaacn5708K अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Navdeep Sharma, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 29.05.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2024 आदेश/Order Per Dr. Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

For Appellant: Sh. Navdeep Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 14Section 14A

depreciation claimed was restricted to 50% of the actual. As far as carry forward of additional depreciation was concerned, there

DCIT-CC-III, LUDHIANA vs. M/S LAXMI ENERGY & FOODS LTD.,, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 33/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 33/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Dcit, Vs. M/S Laxmi Energy & Foods बनाम Ltd., Central Circle-Iii, Sco 18-19, Sector 9-D, Ludhiana Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaacl3147J अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rohit Sharma, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.07.2024 आदेश/Order Per Dr. Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

depreciation cannot be disallowed. 4. In AY 2008-09, the depreciation on power plant was disallowed, but the same had been

M/S NOVA IRON AND STEEL LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 303/CHANDI/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Filing Of Income Tax Return.

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA and Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 253Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

depreciation Rs. 89,96,72,987/-. In the written submission during the appellate proceedings it was stated that depreciation of Rs. 89,96,72,987/- was claimed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. AARTI INTERNATIONAL LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 464/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 14ASection 69

depreciation & additional depreciation as tfle assessee company has failed to establish that the assets were put to use before 31.03.2018. 2. Whether

KANDI FRIENDS EDUCATIONAL TRUST,ROPAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSION OF INCOME TAX, CL. 1, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 798/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

depreciation on it. The AO was of the view that assessee has claimed application of income and also claimed depreciation

KANDI FRIENDS EDUCATIONAL TRUST,ROPAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 797/CHANDI/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

depreciation on it. The AO was of the view that assessee has claimed application of income and also claimed depreciation

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MPHALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 261/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Thakral Advocate And Shri Raman Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

depreciation under section 32 of the Income Tax Act. The depreciation claimed against work in progress is not claimed by the appellant

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MPHALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 262/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Thakral Advocate And Shri Raman Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

depreciation under section 32 of the Income Tax Act. The depreciation claimed against work in progress is not claimed by the appellant

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MPHALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 260/CHANDI/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Thakral Advocate And Shri Raman Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

depreciation under section 32 of the Income Tax Act. The depreciation claimed against work in progress is not claimed by the appellant

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MOHALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 263/CHANDI/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Thakral Advocate And Shri Raman Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

depreciation under section 32 of the Income Tax Act. The depreciation claimed against work in progress is not claimed by the appellant

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MOHALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 258/CHANDI/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Thakral Advocate And Shri Raman Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

depreciation under section 32 of the Income Tax Act. The depreciation claimed against work in progress is not claimed by the appellant

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MPHALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 259/CHANDI/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Thakral Advocate And Shri Raman Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

depreciation under section 32 of the Income Tax Act. The depreciation claimed against work in progress is not claimed by the appellant

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MOHALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 264/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Thakral Advocate And Shri Raman Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

depreciation under section 32 of the Income Tax Act. The depreciation claimed against work in progress is not claimed by the appellant

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MOHALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 265/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Thakral Advocate And Shri Raman Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

depreciation under section 32 of the Income Tax Act. The depreciation claimed against work in progress is not claimed by the appellant