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.

211 results for “depreciation”+ Depreciationclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai5,417 Delhi5,260 Chennai2,155 Bangalore1,910 Kolkata1,111 Ahmedabad723 Pune422 Hyderabad410 Jaipur365 Karnataka317 Chandigarh211 Cochin177 Raipur175 Indore136 Amritsar113 SC102 Visakhapatnam99 Lucknow98 Surat89 Rajkot74 Telangana74 Jodhpur66 Ranchi59 Nagpur58 Cuttack52 Calcutta47 Kerala39 Guwahati35 Patna35 Panaji26 Dehradun23 Agra19 Punjab & Haryana18 Allahabad10 Orissa10 Jabalpur9 Rajasthan7 Varanasi7 Gauhati2 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1 Himachal Pradesh1 D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1 S. B. SINHA MARKANDEY KATJU1 A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1 Tripura1 MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)51 Section 26350 Section 80I47 Addition to Income42 Section 153A34 Depreciation33 Disallowance24 Section 143(2)22 Deduction22 Section 253

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 211 · Page 1 of 11

...

19

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. Therefore, he disallowed the alleged depreciation. However, ld. counsel for the assessee controverted this understanding of the AO. He took

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. Therefore, he disallowed the alleged depreciation. However, ld. counsel for the assessee controverted this understanding of the AO. He took

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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