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.

8 results for “depreciation”+ Section 10Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi478Mumbai446Bangalore324Chennai178Kolkata126Pune42Ahmedabad40Hyderabad30Karnataka28Jaipur27Lucknow17Guwahati8Chandigarh8Surat7Agra5Cochin5Indore5Patna5Rajkot5Telangana5Nagpur3Dehradun3Calcutta3Raipur2Varanasi2Visakhapatnam2Cuttack2SC1Jodhpur1Orissa1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 1117Section 143(2)11Section 143(1)8Section 80I6Section 2505Section 143(3)5Exemption5Depreciation5Addition to Income5Deduction

JCIT(OSD), C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. THE SIKH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, PATIALA

ITA 874/CHANDI/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Against Assessment Order Dt. 30/03/2013 Which Was Passed By Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patiala Range, Patiala, Punjab Which Order Is Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao’S Order”.

For Appellant: Shri Vibhor Garg, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250(6)

10B during the course of assessment proceedings. Therefore, according to the provisions of section 12A(1) (b) of the Income –tax Act, 1961, the provisions of section 11 are not applicable in the case of the assessee . Accordingly, the claim of the assessee for exemption u/s 11 and 12 are hereby rejected. Without prejudice to the above, against the gross

4
Section 12A3
Section 2633

THE SIKH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,PATIALA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE, PATIALA

ITA 687/CHANDI/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Against Assessment Order Dt. 30/03/2013 Which Was Passed By Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patiala Range, Patiala, Punjab Which Order Is Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao’S Order”.

For Appellant: Shri Vibhor Garg, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250(6)

10B during the course of assessment proceedings. Therefore, according to the provisions of section 12A(1) (b) of the Income –tax Act, 1961, the provisions of section 11 are not applicable in the case of the assessee . Accordingly, the claim of the assessee for exemption u/s 11 and 12 are hereby rejected. Without prejudice to the above, against the gross

CT EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,JALANDHAR vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is Partly Allowed for\nStatistical Purposes as per the directions above

ITA 396/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Dec 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Ashray Sarna, CA(Virtual Mode)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 250

10B) is enclosed herewith.\nMadam, the amount of depreciation of Rs.6,93,68,150/- was not included\nwhile calculating utilization of amount on account of revenue expenditure and\ncapital expenditure. Moreover, assessee society has utilized more funds then the\nreceipts of the society so it is therefore requested that no adverse inference may\nkindly be drawn against assessee society

SHAPING CAREERS EDUCATION SOCIETY,PANCHKULA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD,, AMBALA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 586/CHANDI/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Aug 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Denying The Exemption By The Cpc.

For Appellant: Shri Jaspal Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR (Virtual Mode)
Section 11Section 12ASection 250

sections 11 and 12 of the Act was denied on the ground that the assessee had filed its audit report in Form No. 10B instead of the prescribed Form No. 10BB as mandated under Rule 17B of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. 2. In the present appeal Assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. The impugned order u/s 250 dated

VIRGO ALUMINUM LTD.,SIRMOUR vs. PR. C.I.T., CIRCLE, PATIALA

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 438/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 438/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263oSection 80Section 80I

depreciation if form 3AA was not filed along with the return of income but same was filed during the assessment proceedings before final order of assessment was made. 1. Allowability of deduction u/s 80-IB if the Form 10CCB has not been field along with the return of income but before the final order of assessment was made. Since both

ARYA COLLEGE,LUDHIANA, PUNJAB vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE 1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 1132/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Jul 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: \nShri B.M. Monga & Shri Rohit Kaura, AdvocatesFor Respondent: \nShri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)

Depreciation as per books of accounts of | Rs.12,40,731/-\nthe assessee (Mandatory)\n| TOTAL INCOME | -66,923/-\n4. The CPC, Bangalore has processed the return but made\naddition of Rs.11,39,77,899/- by denying the benefit of\nSection 11 and 12 of the Act. It is pertinent to observe that if\nbenefit of Section

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,KALA AMB vs. ITO, SIRMOUR

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

ITA 61/CHANDI/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Aditya Sood, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253Section 80I

section 40A(3) of Income Tax Act 1961 .Therefore, this amount of Rs 1,23,299/- is added back to the income of the assessee being unexplained cash credit since the same are not reflected in assessee's regular books of accounts on those relevant dates.. Since the above transaction also violated the provisions of section

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,SIRMOUR vs. ADDL. CIT, SOLAN

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

ITA 388/CHANDI/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jul 2024AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Aditya Sood, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253Section 80I

section 40A(3) of Income Tax Act 1961 .Therefore, this amount of Rs 1,23,299/- is added back to the income of the assessee being unexplained cash credit since the same are not reflected in assessee's regular books of accounts on those relevant dates.. Since the above transaction also violated the provisions of section