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.

238 results for “depreciation”+ Section 22clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,061Delhi2,967Bangalore1,176Chennai931Ahmedabad746Kolkata636Pune385Hyderabad347Jaipur345Chandigarh238Raipur168Indore141Visakhapatnam132Surat126Karnataka113Cochin113Cuttack110Amritsar86Rajkot66Lucknow64Guwahati59Ranchi57SC50Nagpur49Jodhpur47Telangana31Agra26Dehradun17Kerala16Panaji11Allahabad11Calcutta9Varanasi6Patna5Jabalpur4Gauhati2Rajasthan2D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1Tripura1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)43Section 80I43Addition to Income39Section 26335Section 14730Depreciation26Section 14823Deduction23Disallowance18Section 43(1)

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
Section 250(6)

depreciation as per the provisions of section 32 of the Income Tax Act. 21. The assessee in this case has pleaded that the assets / equipment in question was the property of CISCO which was taken by the assessee on lease from CISCO against payment of lease charges; Whereas, the sum and substance of the arguments

M/S FASTWAY TRANSMISSION (P) LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result the captioned appeals of the assessee are

Showing 1–20 of 238 · Page 1 of 12

...
12
Section 14A12
Section 80P(2)(d)12
ITA 547/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed
ITAT Chandigarh
28 Apr 2020
AY 2013-14

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
Section 250(6)

depreciation as per the provisions of section 32 of the Income Tax Act. 21. The assessee in this case has pleaded that the assets / equipment in question was the property of CISCO which was taken by the assessee on lease from CISCO against payment of lease charges; Whereas, the sum and substance of the arguments

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

In the result the captioned appeals of the assessee are

ITA 139/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Apr 2020AY 2012-13

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
Section 250(6)

depreciation as per the provisions of section 32 of the Income Tax Act. 21. The assessee in this case has pleaded that the assets / equipment in question was the property of CISCO which was taken by the assessee on lease from CISCO against payment of lease charges; Whereas, the sum and substance of the arguments

A.B. SUGARS LIMITED,PUNJAB vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

22. In response to the show cause, the assessee vide its submission dt. nil submitted as under: “This has reference to your notice dated 29.12.2023 having DIN No. ITBA/REV/F/REV1/2023-24/1059211873(1) on the captioned subject. In this regard we submit that our power unit is eligible for deduction @ 100% of Taxable Profit as per section 80-IA(4)(iv) being power

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

22. In response to the show cause, the assessee vide its submission dt. nil submitted as under: “This has reference to your notice dated 29.12.2023 having DIN No. ITBA/REV/F/REV1/2023-24/1059211873(1) on the captioned subject. In this regard we submit that our power unit is eligible for deduction @ 100% of Taxable Profit as per section 80-IA(4)(iv) being power

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 was also dealt with accordingly. 14.3 Further, in case the AO, after passing of the order, felt it so necessary, he would have invoked the provisions of Section 154 in order to rectify, if he so felt it necessary to do so. 15. Still further, it was only and only the AO passing the order originally who could have

WINSOME TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 528/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ved Parkash Kalia Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the A.Y. concerned". A bare perusal of the above provisions the AO has power to extend his enquiry beyond reasons recorded on the issue which came to his knowledge during the course of pending proceedings. During the course of pending proceedings it came to the notice

ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SML ISUZU LTD., CHANDIGARH

ITA 644/CHANDI/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate and Ms. Somya Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 3

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year): Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

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

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 13. The Ld. AO in the assessment order dt. 26/12/2016 has stated that return declaring income of profit of business is of Rs. 31,54,889/- filed on 29/11/2014 and same is set off against depreciation of 2012-13. The balance depreciation is as under: A.Y Amount of brought forward Amount

KHANNA INFRABUILD PRIVATE LIMITED 2000-1A, SUKHDEV NAGAR FEROZEPUR ROAD, LUDHIANA,LUDHIANA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 679/CHANDI/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jun 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 145(3)Section 153ASection 35ASection 69

section 35AD, it is very much clear that the deduction is allowable of the expenditure, which is capitalized in the books of accounts and the same is allowable in the previous year, in which the commencement of business takes place and ‘hotel’ is one of the ‘specified category'. Further, if the assessee claims such deduction," then no depreciation is allowed

KHANNA INFRABUILD PRIVATE LIMITED ,LUDHIANA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE)-2, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 668/CHANDI/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jun 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 145(3)Section 153ASection 35ASection 69

section 35AD, it is very much clear that the deduction is allowable of the expenditure, which is capitalized in the books of accounts and the same is allowable in the previous year, in which the commencement of business takes place and ‘hotel’ is one of the ‘specified category'. Further, if the assessee claims such deduction," then no depreciation is allowed

KHANNA INFRABUILD PRIVATE LIMITED ,LUDHIANA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE)-2 LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 663/CHANDI/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jun 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 145(3)Section 153ASection 35ASection 69

section 35AD, it is very much clear that the deduction is allowable of the expenditure, which is capitalized in the books of accounts and the same is allowable in the previous year, in which the commencement of business takes place and ‘hotel’ is one of the ‘specified category'. Further, if the assessee claims such deduction," then no depreciation is allowed

S.P. SINGLA CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 514/CHANDI/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Jan 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 153Section 153A

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this Section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under Sub-section (3) of Section 143 or this Section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

M/S DEEPAK ELECTRONICS,SOLAN vs. ITO, WARD, SOLAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 496/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Nov 2021AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 80I

section 80IC of the Act at Rs. 15,21,957/- instead of R. 22,39,739/- claimed by the assessee. 4. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted as under: Asstt. Has been completed U/s 143(3) at returned income. Thereafter, Ld. A.O ahs observed that assessee has not paid any interest

KAKA SINGH ALIAS GULJAR SINGH,PATIALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , PATIALA

ITA 663/CHANDI/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2020-21
For Respondent: \nShri Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocate

section 57.\nThe said provision reads thus:\n\"57. Deductions.-The income chargeable under the head 'Income from other\nsources' shall be computed after making the following deductions, namely :.\n(iv) in the case of income of the nature referred to in clause (viii) of sub-\nsection (2) of section 56, a deduction of a sum equal to fifty

UMESH KUMAR,MANDI vs. ITO, BILASPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 657/CHANDI/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Diva Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Inder MohanFor Respondent: Shri Manjit Singh
Section 144Section 54

section 144. The resultant additions were challenged in appeal before the ITA 657/CHD/2017 A.Y. 2008-09 Page 2 of 5 CIT(A) against the part relief granted by the CIT(A) assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. The Ld. AR inviting attention to the facts of the present case submitted that the assessee at the relevant point of time

DUSHYANT,MANDI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 174/CHANDI/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Diva Singhassessment Year: 2008-09 Dushyant Vs. The Ito S/O Sh. Viptu Ram R/O Vpo Sunder Nagar Tata Pani Distt, Mandi Distt- Mandi, H.P. Pan No. Apfpd0262D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Inder Mohan Revenue By : Shri Manjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Inder MohanFor Respondent: Shri Manjit Singh
Section 49Section 54

section 49 (1) the of the income tax act. The Assessee was also required to address the year of acquisition of the property and support its claim of carrying out improvements on the said property. In the absence of a proper explanation the assessing officer considering the total cost of acquisition and improvement

JCIT(OSD), C-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S KUANTUM PAPERS LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 55/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 May 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptathe D.C.I.T., Vs. M/S Kuantum Papers Ltd., Circle-1(1), Sco 18-19, 1St Floor, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. Pan: Aadca2231K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Smt. Chanderkanta, Add.CITFor Respondent: Shri Vineet Krishan, Adv
Section 143(3)

22,535/- on which depreciation allowable for the year under consideration comes to Rs.2,16,48,380/- as against depreciation of Rs.2,33,55,272/- claimed by the assessee. Therefore, the net disallowable depreciation comes to Rs.17,06,892/-. In view of the above, depreciation of Rs.17,06,982/- is disallowed and added to the income of the assessee

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

22%). It was noticed from the books of account of the assessee that the % applied was not in ratio to the expenditure incurred on CWIP viz a viz PWIP. These facts were confronted to the assessee as why the percentage rate may not be increased to 50%> of the expenses. The assessee did not furnish anything contrary to the above

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

22%). It was noticed from the books of account of the assessee that the % applied was not in ratio to the expenditure incurred on CWIP viz a viz PWIP. These facts were confronted to the assessee as why the percentage rate may not be increased to 50%> of the expenses. The assessee did not furnish anything contrary to the above