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.

2 results for “depreciation”+ Section 111Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai38Delhi10Ahmedabad8Kolkata8Surat2Chandigarh2Chennai2Telangana1Bangalore1Hyderabad1Jaipur1

Key Topics

Section 6(1)(iii)2Section 14A2Section 111A2Section 115J2Section 234B2Section 1152Short Term Capital Gains2Deduction2Depreciation2Disallowance

M/S PUNJAB CHEMICALS & CROP. PROTECTION LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ADDL. CIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 60/CHANDI/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri. Anil KhannaFor Respondent: Mrs. Mona Mohanty
Section 111ASection 115Section 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 6(1)(iii)

depreciation has been wrongly computed the same be computed as per the facts of the case. 6. As per the facts and circumstance of the case and as per the provisions of law, theDispute Resolution Panel has erred in its directions, and the assessing officer has erred in disallowing Rs. 34,60,940/- u/s 14A of the Income

2
Addition to Income2

PUNJAB CHEMICALS & CROP. PROTECTION LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 100/CHANDI/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri. Anil KhannaFor Respondent: Mrs. Mona Mohanty
Section 111ASection 115Section 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 6(1)(iii)

depreciation has been wrongly computed the same be computed as per the facts of the case. 6. As per the facts and circumstance of the case and as per the provisions of law, theDispute Resolution Panel has erred in its directions, and the assessing officer has erred in disallowing Rs. 34,60,940/- u/s 14A of the Income