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.

61 results for “depreciation”+ Section 254(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai985Delhi660Chennai226Bangalore208Kolkata132Ahmedabad132Surat86Jaipur68Hyderabad64Pune62Chandigarh61Cochin40Raipur39Karnataka28Lucknow27Indore22Guwahati19SC13Amritsar10Cuttack9Rajkot9Visakhapatnam8Telangana7Nagpur7Panaji7Calcutta6Agra4Varanasi3Kerala2Ranchi2Jodhpur2Jabalpur2Dehradun2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Patna1

Key Topics

Section 13(3)24Section 250(6)20Section 26316Addition to Income16Section 25315Section 143(3)14Section 143(2)14Section 142(1)14Deduction14

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)

2. CIT vs. Maharashtra Apex Corporation 254 ITR 98(SC) 3. ICDS Ltd. Vs. CIT 350 ITR 527(SC) 4. Rajshree Roadways vs. Union of India [2003] 129taxman 663(Raj.) 5. PKF Finance Ltd. Vs CIT (Pb. & Hry) 6. CIT Vs Cosmo Films Ltd. (2011) 338ITR 226 7. CIT vs Punjab State Electricity Board

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

In the result the captioned appeals of the assessee are

Showing 1–20 of 61 · Page 1 of 4

Depreciation12
Section 80I11
Exemption8
ITA 140/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed
ITAT Chandigarh
28 Apr 2020
AY 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)

2. CIT vs. Maharashtra Apex Corporation 254 ITR 98(SC) 3. ICDS Ltd. Vs. CIT 350 ITR 527(SC) 4. Rajshree Roadways vs. Union of India [2003] 129taxman 663(Raj.) 5. PKF Finance Ltd. Vs CIT (Pb. & Hry) 6. CIT Vs Cosmo Films Ltd. (2011) 338ITR 226 7. CIT vs Punjab State Electricity Board

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

In the result the captioned appeals of the assessee are

ITA 547/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Apr 2020AY 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)

2. CIT vs. Maharashtra Apex Corporation 254 ITR 98(SC) 3. ICDS Ltd. Vs. CIT 350 ITR 527(SC) 4. Rajshree Roadways vs. Union of India [2003] 129taxman 663(Raj.) 5. PKF Finance Ltd. Vs CIT (Pb. & Hry) 6. CIT Vs Cosmo Films Ltd. (2011) 338ITR 226 7. CIT vs Punjab State Electricity Board

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

DCIT-CIRCLE, PARWANOO vs. M/S SHIVOM COTSPIN LTD., SIRMOUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed

ITA 47/CHANDI/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.560/Chd/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2015-16 Shivam Cotspin Limited, The Dcit, Circle, बनाम Village Kheri, Parwanoo Kala Amb, Trilokpur Road, Sirmour Himachal Pradesh "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aajs9111L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Daya Inder Singh Sidhu, Addl. CIT
Section 250(6)Section 80I

depreciation in any year), as on the first day of the previous year in which the substantial expansion is undertaken;” As is evident from a bare reading,Section 80IC (1) allows deduction of profits earned by undertakings /enterprises specified in subsection (2), at rates and for period specified in sub section (3).Sub Section (2) specifies eligibility criteria for undertakings

ACIT, CIRCLE, PARWANOO vs. SHIVOM COTSPIN LIMITED, SIRMOUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed

ITA 957/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.560/Chd/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2015-16 Shivam Cotspin Limited, The Dcit, Circle, बनाम Village Kheri, Parwanoo Kala Amb, Trilokpur Road, Sirmour Himachal Pradesh "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aajs9111L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Daya Inder Singh Sidhu, Addl. CIT
Section 250(6)Section 80I

depreciation in any year), as on the first day of the previous year in which the substantial expansion is undertaken;” As is evident from a bare reading,Section 80IC (1) allows deduction of profits earned by undertakings /enterprises specified in subsection (2), at rates and for period specified in sub section (3).Sub Section (2) specifies eligibility criteria for undertakings

DCIT-CIRCLE, PARWANOO vs. M/S SHIVOM COTSPIN LTD., SIRMOUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed

ITA 46/CHANDI/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.560/Chd/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2015-16 Shivam Cotspin Limited, The Dcit, Circle, बनाम Village Kheri, Parwanoo Kala Amb, Trilokpur Road, Sirmour Himachal Pradesh "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aajs9111L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Daya Inder Singh Sidhu, Addl. CIT
Section 250(6)Section 80I

depreciation in any year), as on the first day of the previous year in which the substantial expansion is undertaken;” As is evident from a bare reading,Section 80IC (1) allows deduction of profits earned by undertakings /enterprises specified in subsection (2), at rates and for period specified in sub section (3).Sub Section (2) specifies eligibility criteria for undertakings

SHIVOM COTSPIN LIMITED,KALA AMB vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, PARWANOO

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed

ITA 560/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.560/Chd/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2015-16 Shivam Cotspin Limited, The Dcit, Circle, बनाम Village Kheri, Parwanoo Kala Amb, Trilokpur Road, Sirmour Himachal Pradesh "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aajs9111L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Daya Inder Singh Sidhu, Addl. CIT
Section 250(6)Section 80I

depreciation in any year), as on the first day of the previous year in which the substantial expansion is undertaken;” As is evident from a bare reading,Section 80IC (1) allows deduction of profits earned by undertakings /enterprises specified in subsection (2), at rates and for period specified in sub section (3).Sub Section (2) specifies eligibility criteria for undertakings

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
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 13(2

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
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 13(2

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
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 13(2

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
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 13(2

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
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 13(2

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
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 13(2

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
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 13(2

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
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 13(2

PUNJAB BEVERAGES PVT. LTD.,PATIALA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, PATIALA

ITA 438/CHANDI/2018[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Dec 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.438/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2001-02

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Gupta, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250(6)Section 41(1)

depreciation allowance and thereafter assess the income in accordance with law. The Ld.CIT(A) stated that his aforesaid directions would not tantamount to setting aside the assessment order and referring the case back to the A.O. for making fresh A.Y.2001-02 assessment which had been omitted from section 251(1)(a) of the Act giving the powers

DCIT, CIRCLE, PATIALA vs. M/S PUNJAB BEVERAGES PVT. LTD., PATIALA

ITA 446/CHANDI/2018[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Dec 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.438/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2001-02

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Gupta, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250(6)Section 41(1)

depreciation allowance and thereafter assess the income in accordance with law. The Ld.CIT(A) stated that his aforesaid directions would not tantamount to setting aside the assessment order and referring the case back to the A.O. for making fresh A.Y.2001-02 assessment which had been omitted from section 251(1)(a) of the Act giving the powers

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

254 (Guj)” 7.3. The Coordinate Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. ShriJayantilal T. Jariwala (supra) taking note of the aforesaid decision of various High Courts, under similar circumstances, has decided the issue in favour of the assessee, observing as under: “8. We have duly considered rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. Before

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

254 (Guj)” 7.3. The Coordinate Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. ShriJayantilal T. Jariwala (supra) taking note of the aforesaid decision of various High Courts, under similar circumstances, has decided the issue in favour of the assessee, observing as under: “8. We have duly considered rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. Before