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.

228 results for “depreciation”+ Section 13clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,351 Delhi3,998 Bangalore1,606 Chennai1,418 Kolkata909 Ahmedabad894 Hyderabad444 Jaipur339 Pune295 Chandigarh228 Karnataka223 Cochin190 Indore173 Raipur172 Surat171 Amritsar123 Cuttack117 Visakhapatnam109 Rajkot82 Lucknow73 SC72 Nagpur65 Jodhpur61 Ranchi59 Telangana51 Guwahati37 Panaji25 Agra25 Dehradun20 Allahabad20 Kerala19 Patna16 Calcutta13 Jabalpur8 Varanasi7 Rajasthan6 Punjab & Haryana4 Orissa4 Gauhati2 MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1 D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1 Himachal Pradesh1 A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1 Tripura1

Key Topics

Section 80I48 Section 143(3)46 Addition to Income46 Depreciation29 Section 14727 Disallowance26 Section 26325 Deduction25 Section 14824 Section 143(2)

DCIT, C-1 (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH vs. THE INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ENGINEERS SOCIETY, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 52/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 May 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 143(3)

depreciation etc. can be made and it cannot be said\nITA No.52/CHD/2023\nΑ.Υ.2017-18\n23\nthat there is violation of section 13

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

Showing 1–20 of 228 · Page 1 of 12

...

17

Section 250(6)12

Section 43(1)12

ITA 29/CHANDI/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR

Section 13(3)

depreciation on car were disallowed u/s 13(2)(b) of the Act, since the car was being used by the Chairman of Trust. It was held by the Hon'ble IT AT that no incriminating material was found during the course of search that the cars were being used for personal purpose and for allegation of section

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 137/CHANDI/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR

depreciation on car were disallowed u/s 13(2)(b) of the Act, since the car was being used by the Chairman of Trust. It was held by the Hon'ble IT AT that no incriminating material was found during the course of search that the cars were being used for personal purpose and for allegation of section

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 30/CHANDI/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR

depreciation on car were disallowed u/s 13(2)(b) of the Act, since the car was being used by the Chairman of Trust. It was held by the Hon'ble IT AT that no incriminating material was found during the course of search that the cars were being used for personal purpose and for allegation of section

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 136/CHANDI/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR

depreciation on car were disallowed u/s 13(2)(b) of the Act, since the car was being used by the Chairman of Trust. It was held by the Hon'ble IT AT that no incriminating material was found during the course of search that the cars were being used for personal purpose and for allegation of section

M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 3/CHANDI/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR

depreciation on car were disallowed u/s 13(2)(b) of the Act, since the car was being used by the Chairman of Trust. It was held by the Hon'ble IT AT that no incriminating material was found during the course of search that the cars were being used for personal purpose and for allegation of section

DCIT,CIRCLE-1(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SCHOOL( MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 27/CHANDI/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR

depreciation on car were disallowed u/s 13(2)(b) of the Act, since the car was being used by the Chairman of Trust. It was held by the Hon'ble IT AT that no incriminating material was found during the course of search that the cars were being used for personal purpose and for allegation of section

M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 2/CHANDI/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR

depreciation on car were disallowed u/s 13(2)(b) of the Act, since the car was being used by the Chairman of Trust. It was held by the Hon'ble IT AT that no incriminating material was found during the course of search that the cars were being used for personal purpose and for allegation of section

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 28/CHANDI/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR

depreciation on car were disallowed u/s 13(2)(b) of the Act, since the car was being used by the Chairman of Trust. It was held by the Hon'ble IT AT that no incriminating material was found during the course of search that the cars were being used for personal purpose and for allegation of section

M/S HERITAGE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

ITA 1071/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Nov 2020AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Sudarshan, JCIT (Sr. DR)

Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

section 13 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, you are requested reopen the cases of the society u/s 147 of the Act, for the A. Y. 2008-09 to 2015-16 to disallow the salary/remuneration made to Sh. Amit Bansal, Anoop Soni and Mukesh Bansal. 6. The next issue is that vide reply dated 15.12.2015 submitted by the counsel

M/S HERITAGE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

ITA 1069/CHANDI/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Nov 2020AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Sudarshan, JCIT (Sr. DR)

Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

section 13 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, you are requested reopen the cases of the society u/s 147 of the Act, for the A. Y. 2008-09 to 2015-16 to disallow the salary/remuneration made to Sh. Amit Bansal, Anoop Soni and Mukesh Bansal. 6. The next issue is that vide reply dated 15.12.2015 submitted by the counsel

M/S HERITAGE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

ITA 1070/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Sudarshan, JCIT (Sr. DR)

Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

section 13 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, you are requested reopen the cases of the society u/s 147 of the Act, for the A. Y. 2008-09 to 2015-16 to disallow the salary/remuneration made to Sh. Amit Bansal, Anoop Soni and Mukesh Bansal. 6. The next issue is that vide reply dated 15.12.2015 submitted by the counsel

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)

13,90,153 Non-utilisation of accumulated Funds (AY 6,27,75,303 2010-11) Disallowance of Revenue Expenditure on AME 15,17,461 Course Disallowance of Donation 1,10,000 Depreciation disallowed and excess of income 2,82,41,720 over expenditure Total Taxable Income 10,47,74,451 5. The assessee has taken eight grounds of appeal

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)

13,90,153 Non-utilisation of accumulated Funds (AY 6,27,75,303 2010-11) Disallowance of Revenue Expenditure on AME 15,17,461 Course Disallowance of Donation 1,10,000 Depreciation disallowed and excess of income 2,82,41,720 over expenditure Total Taxable Income 10,47,74,451 5. The assessee has taken eight grounds of appeal

M/S PINEGROVE INTERNATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1 (E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed

ITA 567/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Aug 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.567/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Sood, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Daya Inder Singh

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

section 13(3) of the Act 9. The Ld.DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of the authorities below. 10. The next contention raised by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee was against the reasoning of the Ld.CIT(A) for arriving at the conclusion that undue benefit had been given to the trustee by way of rent paid

DCIT, C-,1 (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S PUNJAB MEDICAL FOUNDATION CHARITABLE TRUST, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 10/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt.Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Cir.1(Exemption) M/S.Punjab Medical Foundation Chandigarh. Vs. Charitable Trust 63-64, Waryam Nagar Cool Road, Jalandhar Pan : Aaatp 5171 B (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Sudhir Sehal, Advocate Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Ashok K. Khana, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18/11/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/12/2020 आदेश/O R D E R

For Respondent: Shri Ashok K. Khana, Addl.CIT

Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)

13(1)(c) of the Act. In other words, the AO was of the view that on account of Dr.R.S. Chahal’s relationship with the Society, undue benefit is being extended to him on account of higher payment of professional charges, (iv) the assessee has another women kinder hospital where it has suffered loss, and such loss

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH vs. UNIPRO TECHNO INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the order of the ld CIT(A) is confirmed and the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 693/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri A.K. Sood, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 80I

13) of section 80IA of the Act. The learned Pr. CIT has held that as per the aforesaid explanation to the section work contracts are not eligible for deduction under section 80IA(4) and apparently the project undertaken by the assessee is covered under the definition of "works contract". Moreover the Assessing Officer has not examined this aspect during

DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. UNIPRO TECHNO INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 149/CHANDI/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sandip Dahiya, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

13) of section 80IA of the Act. The learned Pr. CIT has held that as per the aforesaid explanation to the section work contracts are not eligible for deduction under section 80IA(4) and apparently the project undertaken by the assessee is covered under the definition of “works contract”. Moreover the Assessing Officer has not examined this aspect during

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

Section 13(2) and 13(3) of the Act.\n3.2 The AO computed the total assessed income at Rs.10,92,96,818/-, making\nthe following key additions:\nΟ\nSurplus taxed as AOP (Denial of Exemption): Rs.10,20,01,948/-\nDisallowance of Interest (on advances to specified persons): Rs.\n10,61,466/-\nΟ\nDisallowance of Salary to Specified Persons: Rs.21

M/S FASTWAY TRANSMISSION (P) LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result the captioned appeals of the assessee are

ITA 140/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Apr 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.547/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Chandrajit Singh, CIT (DR) on 4.12.2019

depreciation. He is this respect has relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of “CIT v. Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd.” [2011] 336 ITR 374 (Delhi). 13. The Department has also filed various documents and written submissions in support of its contention. The main thrust of the Ld. DR has been that the impugned agreement