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.

168 results for “depreciation”+ Section 13(1)(c)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,118 Delhi2,975 Bangalore1,254 Chennai918 Kolkata726 Ahmedabad473 Jaipur273 Hyderabad245 Pune172 Chandigarh168 Raipur140 Karnataka136 Indore105 Surat101 Amritsar84 Visakhapatnam65 SC61 Cochin61 Lucknow60 Cuttack54 Rajkot47 Nagpur36 Telangana35 Guwahati31 Jodhpur27 Dehradun19 Agra17 Kerala17 Panaji16 Allahabad16 Calcutta11 Patna8 Ranchi7 Rajasthan6 Varanasi5 Punjab & Haryana4 Gauhati2 Jabalpur2 Orissa2 A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1 D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)35 Addition to Income35 Section 80I29 Section 13(3)28 Section 26325 Section 143(2)21 Disallowance20 Section 14819 Depreciation18

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(1)(c

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 168 · Page 1 of 9

...

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

Section 13(3)

13(1)(c) of the Act Consequently there is no justification for denying the benefit under Section 11 of the Act. The Hon'ble ITAT, Chandigarh Bench, in the case of M/s Indo Soviet Friendship College for Pharmacy Managing Committee, in ITA No.478 & 479/CHD/2013 dated 2.6 09.2015 has held that the vehicle running expenses and depreciation

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

13(1)(c) of the Act Consequently there is no justification for denying the benefit under Section 11 of the Act. The Hon'ble ITAT, Chandigarh Bench, in the case of M/s Indo Soviet Friendship College for Pharmacy Managing Committee, in ITA No.478 & 479/CHD/2013 dated 2.6 09.2015 has held that the vehicle running expenses and depreciation

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

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

13(1)(c) of the Act Consequently there is no justification for denying the benefit under Section 11 of the Act. The Hon'ble ITAT, Chandigarh Bench, in the case of M/s Indo Soviet Friendship College for Pharmacy Managing Committee, in ITA No.478 & 479/CHD/2013 dated 2.6 09.2015 has held that the vehicle running expenses and depreciation

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

13(1)(c) of the Act Consequently there is no justification for denying the benefit under Section 11 of the Act. The Hon'ble ITAT, Chandigarh Bench, in the case of M/s Indo Soviet Friendship College for Pharmacy Managing Committee, in ITA No.478 & 479/CHD/2013 dated 2.6 09.2015 has held that the vehicle running expenses and depreciation

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

13(1)(c) of the Act Consequently there is no justification for denying the benefit under Section 11 of the Act. The Hon'ble ITAT, Chandigarh Bench, in the case of M/s Indo Soviet Friendship College for Pharmacy Managing Committee, in ITA No.478 & 479/CHD/2013 dated 2.6 09.2015 has held that the vehicle running expenses and depreciation

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

13(1)(c) of the Act Consequently there is no justification for denying the benefit under Section 11 of the Act. The Hon'ble ITAT, Chandigarh Bench, in the case of M/s Indo Soviet Friendship College for Pharmacy Managing Committee, in ITA No.478 & 479/CHD/2013 dated 2.6 09.2015 has held that the vehicle running expenses and depreciation

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

13(1)(c) of the Act Consequently there is no justification for denying the benefit under Section 11 of the Act. The Hon'ble ITAT, Chandigarh Bench, in the case of M/s Indo Soviet Friendship College for Pharmacy Managing Committee, in ITA No.478 & 479/CHD/2013 dated 2.6 09.2015 has held that the vehicle running expenses and depreciation

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

13(1)(c) of the Act Consequently there is no justification for denying the benefit under Section 11 of the Act. The Hon'ble ITAT, Chandigarh Bench, in the case of M/s Indo Soviet Friendship College for Pharmacy Managing Committee, in ITA No.478 & 479/CHD/2013 dated 2.6 09.2015 has held that the vehicle running expenses and depreciation

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 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 in assessment year 2014-15 and ten grounds of appeal in assessment year 2015-16. In brief, its grievance revolves around the additions noticed by us in the above table and rest

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 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 in assessment year 2014-15 and ten grounds of appeal in assessment year 2015-16. In brief, its grievance revolves around the additions noticed by us in the above table and rest

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

1)(c) read with 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

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 102/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Jindal, CA &For Respondent: Smt.C. Chandrakanta, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Depreciation. A.Y. 2012-13 Page 8 of 18 5. CIT Vs Gold Coin Health Food (P.) Ltd (172 Taxman 386 (SC)/[2008] 304 ITR 308 (SC)/[2008] 218 CTR 359)where Hon'ble Delhi Supreme Court held that amendment made in Explanation 4 to section 271(1)(c)(iii) with effect from 1-4-2003 is clarificatory and, therefore, will

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

ITA 172/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court

SH. AMARDEEP SINGH ATHWAL,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, YAMUNANAGAR

ITA 565/CHANDI/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court

PAWAN KUMAR,FATEHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, FATEHABAD

ITA 1112/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court

SH. AMARDEEP SINGH ATHWAL,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, YAMUNANAGAR

ITA 566/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court

SMT. SHANKRI DEVI,PANCHKULA vs. ACIT, PANCKULA CIRCLE, PANCHKULA

ITA 596/CHANDI/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court

SAROJ CHAUDHARY BALA,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD-4, PANCHKULA

ITA 635/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

ITA 992/CHANDI/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court