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.

216 results for “depreciation”+ Business Incomeclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai5,486Delhi4,700Chennai1,970Bangalore1,776Kolkata1,238Ahmedabad663Hyderabad430Pune361Jaipur334Karnataka271Chandigarh216Raipur185Surat174Cochin167Indore135Amritsar97Visakhapatnam95Cuttack93Rajkot90Lucknow85SC76Telangana61Nagpur57Ranchi55Jodhpur53Guwahati44Patna37Panaji34Kerala29Dehradun26Agra23Calcutta21Allahabad19Varanasi10Punjab & Haryana10Jabalpur9Orissa4Rajasthan4Gauhati2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1S. B. SINHA MARKANDEY KATJU1Tripura1Himachal Pradesh1

Key Topics

Addition to Income46Section 143(3)39Section 80I33Section 14827Depreciation25Disallowance24Section 26322Deduction17Section 143(2)16Section 153A

SH. GURINDER MAKKAR,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-3, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 20/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 32Section 37Section 40A(3)Section 43(1)Section 68Section 69

business income. 8.16 Coming to the related issue of disallowance of depreciation on such cost of construction, we find that

Showing 1–20 of 216 · Page 1 of 11

...
16
Section 14715
Section 69A13

SANJEEV KUMAR GOYAL,FATEHABAD vs. DCIT, CC-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 80/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: This Hon’Ble Tribunal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Amended From Time To Time. 2. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 20/01/2023 In Appeal No. 10853/2018-19/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2021-22 For The A.Y. 2019-20 Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Was Dismissed. Therefore The Present Second Appeal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Before Us Against The Aforesaid Order Dt. 20/01/2023 Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Order.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishaba Marwaha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 250(6)Section 253Section 68

Income-tax are applicable in this case. 5.6 Further, after availing ample opportunities the assessee failed to prove the source of investment made in the construction of building is from the business income/disclosed sources. The assessee has only stated that the building has been shown in the balance sheet as capital Work in Progress and not claimed depreciation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. GPG CATTLE FEED PVT. LTD., MOGA

In the result, the Revenue appeal is partly allowed and the Cross Objection of\nthe assessee is dismissed

ITA 210/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Apr 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: \nShri Rupinder Kansal, Advocate andFor Respondent: \nShri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69

income under the heads pertaining to the profits\nof the business and profession are allowed to be set off against the business\nloss / depreciation

M/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENET CORPORATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 140/CHANDI/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ao)

For Appellant: Sh.Tejmohan Singh, Adv. and Sh. Vineet Khurana, C. AFor Respondent: Sh.Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. D. R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 253

business income during the relevant period, such deductions cannot be declined. The depreciation is not in respect of the assets

M/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENET CORPORATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 141/CHANDI/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ao)

For Appellant: Sh.Tejmohan Singh, Adv. and Sh. Vineet Khurana, C. AFor Respondent: Sh.Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. D. R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 253

business income during the relevant period, such deductions cannot be declined. The depreciation is not in respect of the assets

M/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENET CORPORATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 142/CHANDI/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ao)

For Appellant: Sh.Tejmohan Singh, Adv. and Sh. Vineet Khurana, C. AFor Respondent: Sh.Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. D. R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 253

business income during the relevant period, such deductions cannot be declined. The depreciation is not in respect of the assets

M/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENET CORPORATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 139/CHANDI/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ao)

For Appellant: Sh.Tejmohan Singh, Adv. and Sh. Vineet Khurana, C. AFor Respondent: Sh.Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. D. R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 253

business income during the relevant period, such deductions cannot be declined. The depreciation is not in respect of the assets

NOOR RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,KULLU vs. PR.CIT, SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 309/CHANDI/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Oct 2021AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Mohit Guglani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

depreciation as well as the expenses to work out the income / loss of the assessee. 8.10 In view of the aforesaid discussion, in the present case, it can be said that by considering the rental income received by the assessee as “business

SH. MOHIT MITTAL PROP. MITTAL ENTERPRISES,LUDHIANA, PUNJAB vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1 LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 198/CHANDI/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Jan 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl.CIT, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 69A

business is to be .allowed deduction either as expenditure or to be capitalized on which depreciation will be allowed. The assessee might have earned income

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

Business & Profession, Companies Act Depreciation has been added back at Rs. 14,66,75,246 (Power Division (Eligible Unit)-5,20,25,050 & Other Divisions (Non-Eligible Units)- 9,46,50,196) and Depreciation as Income

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Business & Profession, Companies Act Depreciation has been added back at Rs. 14,66,75,246 (Power Division (Eligible Unit)-5,20,25,050 & Other Divisions (Non-Eligible Units)- 9,46,50,196) and Depreciation as Income

SAS INFONET PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT ACIT(CEN)-2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the present appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 833/CHANDI/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: the AO.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, CA and Shri Virsain Aggarwal, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, CIT, DR (Virtual Hearing)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250(6)

income is not determinative of the genuineness of business or the allowability of business expenditure. The assessee has consistently engaged in the business of IT and networking, as accepted in A.Y. 2016–17, and has placed audited accounts and tax audit reports on record. Though it was vaguely argued that the assessment order for the 2016-17 was passed prior

SAS INFONET PRIVATE LIMITED ,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT ACIT(CEN)-2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the present appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 834/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, CA and Shri Virsain Aggarwal, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, CIT, DR (Virtual Hearing)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250(6)

income is not determinative of the genuineness of business or the allowability of business expenditure. The assessee has consistently engaged in the business of IT and networking, as accepted in A.Y. 2016–17, and has placed audited accounts and tax audit reports on record. Though it was vaguely argued that the assessment order for the 2016-17 was passed prior

M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, C-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 486/CHANDI/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, Advocate and Shri Pankaj Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 80I

income of Rs. 65,47,626/-. Its breakup is rebate and discount of Rs. 55,97,132/-, recovery from contractor of Rs. 7,24,136/- and other miscellaneous receipts of Rs. 2,26,358/-. 16.5 Regarding the rebate and discount, this comprises of Turnover discount received from suppliers. It is undisputedly relates to material purchases, which is, obviously the business

VARDHMAN TEXTILES LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT-CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 61/CHANDI/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, Advocate and Shri Pankaj Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 80I

income of Rs. 65,47,626/-. Its breakup is rebate and discount of Rs. 55,97,132/-, recovery from contractor of Rs. 7,24,136/- and other miscellaneous receipts of Rs. 2,26,358/-. 16.5 Regarding the rebate and discount, this comprises of Turnover discount received from suppliers. It is undisputedly relates to material purchases, which is, obviously the business

ACIT,CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA vs. M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 117/CHANDI/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, Advocate and Shri Pankaj Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 80I

income of Rs. 65,47,626/-. Its breakup is rebate and discount of Rs. 55,97,132/-, recovery from contractor of Rs. 7,24,136/- and other miscellaneous receipts of Rs. 2,26,358/-. 16.5 Regarding the rebate and discount, this comprises of Turnover discount received from suppliers. It is undisputedly relates to material purchases, which is, obviously the business

M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, C-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 187/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, Advocate and Shri Pankaj Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 80I

income of Rs. 65,47,626/-. Its breakup is rebate and discount of Rs. 55,97,132/-, recovery from contractor of Rs. 7,24,136/- and other miscellaneous receipts of Rs. 2,26,358/-. 16.5 Regarding the rebate and discount, this comprises of Turnover discount received from suppliers. It is undisputedly relates to material purchases, which is, obviously the business

DCIT, C-1, LUDHIANA vs. M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LIMITED, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 260/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, Advocate and Shri Pankaj Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 80I

income of Rs. 65,47,626/-. Its breakup is rebate and discount of Rs. 55,97,132/-, recovery from contractor of Rs. 7,24,136/- and other miscellaneous receipts of Rs. 2,26,358/-. 16.5 Regarding the rebate and discount, this comprises of Turnover discount received from suppliers. It is undisputedly relates to material purchases, which is, obviously the business

ROPAR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE UNION LIMITED,MOHALI vs. PCIT, CHANDIGAR-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 360/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AAKASH DEEPJAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri M.R.Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 23Section 24Section 263Section 269USection 53A

business income and income from other sources. It had also shown agriculture income. The assessee had taken three booths on lease from the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, since 01.07.1987. These booths had been sub-let to three different milk vendors from whom rent was received. The assessee had claimed deduction u/s 24(a) of the Income Tax Act @ 30% from

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

business income, the assessee was entitled to depreciation under section 32 of the Income Tax Act. The depreciation claimed against