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.

6 results for “depreciation”+ Section 234Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi325Mumbai196Bangalore103Jaipur52Ahmedabad34Chennai26Hyderabad23Ranchi15Pune14Kolkata14Lucknow13Indore11Dehradun7Cochin7Guwahati6Chandigarh6Nagpur5Agra4Surat4Rajkot4Jodhpur3SC3Patna2Panaji1Cuttack1Punjab & Haryana1Amritsar1Telangana1Visakhapatnam1

Key Topics

Section 1014Section 1486Section 234A5Addition to Income5Section 143(3)4Section 114Section 693Section 142A3Section 2713Penalty

EXOTIC REALTORS AND DEVELOPERS,CHANDIGARH vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 189/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 253Section 263

234A, 234B & 234C of the Income Tax Act, as applicable. The calculation sheet is enclosed as the part of the assessment order. 13.2 Basis above assessment order dt. 24/03/2023 under section 147 r.w.s 144 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, the Ld. AR vehemently contended that assessee has gone through the rigours of the proceedings under section

3
Survey u/s 133A3
Exemption2

KATIANI EDUCATION SOCIETY,KULLU vs. DCIT, MANDI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 664/CHANDI/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Apr 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Chanderkanta, Addl. CIT
Section 10Section 11Section 148Section 234Section 234A

234A, B & C of the Act, which is consequential in nature, whereas, ground No.9 is general in nature and need not to be adjudicated. In view of this, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2007-08 is also treated as partly allowed. 19. In this appeal, the assessee has taken as many as 08 grounds of appeal, which

KATIANI EDUCATION SOCIETY,KULLU vs. DCIT, MANDI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 668/CHANDI/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Chanderkanta, Addl. CIT
Section 10Section 11Section 148Section 234Section 234A

234A, B & C of the Act, which is consequential in nature, whereas, ground No.9 is general in nature and need not to be adjudicated. In view of this, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2007-08 is also treated as partly allowed. 19. In this appeal, the assessee has taken as many as 08 grounds of appeal, which

M/S HOTEL OAK VALLEY RESIDENCY,CHAMBA vs. ITO, BANIKHET

In the result this appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 772/CHANDI/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 772/Chd/2012 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Sudershan, JCIT DR
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 144Section 234ASection 271Section 69Section 69B

234A and 234B without appreciating our written submissions made in this regard. 10. That the appellant craves to add, to amend, to delete, to withdraw, to modify any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing or during hearing period. 11. That the order passed by CIT(A) is illegal, bad in law and contrary to the/ provisions

M/S OAK VALLEY RESIDENCY,DALHOUISE vs. ITO, DALHOUSIE AT, BANIKHET

In the result this appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 496/CHANDI/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 772/Chd/2012 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Sudershan, JCIT DR
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 144Section 234ASection 271Section 69Section 69B

234A and 234B without appreciating our written submissions made in this regard. 10. That the appellant craves to add, to amend, to delete, to withdraw, to modify any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing or during hearing period. 11. That the order passed by CIT(A) is illegal, bad in law and contrary to the/ provisions

M/S OAK VALLEY RESIDENCY,DALHOUSIE vs. ITO, BANIKHET

In the result this appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 485/CHANDI/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 772/Chd/2012 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Sudershan, JCIT DR
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 144Section 234ASection 271Section 69Section 69B

234A and 234B without appreciating our written submissions made in this regard. 10. That the appellant craves to add, to amend, to delete, to withdraw, to modify any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing or during hearing period. 11. That the order passed by CIT(A) is illegal, bad in law and contrary to the/ provisions