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.

194 results for “depreciation”+ Section 29clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,733Delhi2,482Bangalore1,022Chennai773Ahmedabad644Kolkata528Hyderabad302Pune301Jaipur296Chandigarh194Karnataka163Raipur135Indore121Surat113Cuttack112Cochin107Visakhapatnam103Amritsar94Rajkot56Guwahati54Ranchi49Lucknow44SC42Nagpur38Jodhpur27Telangana26Dehradun22Agra20Kerala16Allahabad14Panaji9Patna7Calcutta5Varanasi5Jabalpur2Rajasthan2Tripura1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1Gauhati1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Punjab & Haryana1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1

Key Topics

Section 80I51Section 14741Section 143(3)37Section 14837Section 26337Addition to Income36Deduction29Section 13(3)24Depreciation21Disallowance

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)

29. Now the issue raised through Additional Ground of appeal 30. The Ld. DR has objected to the admission of additional ground of appeal at this stage. It has been submitted the additional ground is not a legal ground as the allowability of depreciation @ 60% or @ 15% is purely based on facts and classification of this Act, therefore, the above

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 194 · Page 1 of 10

...
19
Section 153A16
Section 43(1)15
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)

29. Now the issue raised through Additional Ground of appeal 30. The Ld. DR has objected to the admission of additional ground of appeal at this stage. It has been submitted the additional ground is not a legal ground as the allowability of depreciation @ 60% or @ 15% is purely based on facts and classification of this Act, therefore, the above

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)

29. Now the issue raised through Additional Ground of appeal 30. The Ld. DR has objected to the admission of additional ground of appeal at this stage. It has been submitted the additional ground is not a legal ground as the allowability of depreciation @ 60% or @ 15% is purely based on facts and classification of this Act, therefore, the above

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

29 along with the same Taxable Profit for which deduction is allowable under section 80-IA{4)(iv) is also stated at Rs. 23,94,34,249/- at Point No. 30. Annexure 2 of our Reply to TPO provides with the Computation of the company profit in which it can be observed that company claimed 100% deduction of the taxable

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

29 along with the same Taxable Profit for which deduction is allowable under section 80-IA{4)(iv) is also stated at Rs. 23,94,34,249/- at Point No. 30. Annexure 2 of our Reply to TPO provides with the Computation of the company profit in which it can be observed that company claimed 100% deduction of the taxable

ACIT, C-7, LUDHIANA vs. M/S CEIGALL INDIA LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 291/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Heard Or Disposed Off.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. C. Chandrakanta, CIT
Section 133ASection 145(3)Section 69C

depreciation is to be allowed from the income determined by applying the net profit rate of 6.5%. 21. Vide ground no. 3 the grievance of the Department relates to the deletion of addition of Rs. 84,19,383/- made by the A.O. by invoking the provisions of section 69C of the act. 22. The facts related to this issue

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH vs. WINSOME TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LTD, CHANDIGARH

ITA 556/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2025AY 2011-12
For Respondent: \nThe DCIT
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

29,15,034/- has escaped assessment within the\nmeaning of Section 147 of the Act and another notice under section 148 was\nissued on 31/03/2018 which was served on the assessee on the said date.\n6. In response to the notice under section 148, the assessee filed its return of\nincome on 19/04/2018 declaring total income as declared

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

depreciation by virtue of the concept of the actual cost under section 43(1) r.w. Explanation 10. It cannot be said that the grant in aid is only a measure under the scheme but it can correctly be said that grant in aid is for plant and machinery and technical civil work only. 29

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

29,15,034/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act and another notice under section 148 was issued on 31/03/2018 which was served on the assessee on the said date. 6. In response to the notice under section 148, the assessee filed its return of income on 19/04/2018 declaring total income as declared

VIMAL ALLOYS PRIVATE LIMITED, MANDI GOBINDGARH,PUNJAB vs. JAO THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, PATIALA, PUNJAB

ITA 890/CHANDI/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017

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

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Vipen Sethi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69A

section 148, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Depreciation - Allowance/Rate of (Rate of depreciation/ATMs) - Assessment years 2005-06 to 2007-08 - Assessee bank installed ATMs, and claimed depreciation at rate of 60 per cent by treating it as computer - Assessing Officer sought to reopen case on ground that depreciation allowable on plant and machinery was to be allowed - Reasons

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

29,775/- Less: Expenditure transferred directly to Rs. 89.34,401/ respective account Net Salary & Wages Rs. 2,61,95,374/- Allocated to CWIP Rs. 1,52,03,795/- % of allocated CWIP 58% It appears that there was some confusion in the mind of the Assessing Officer, because he has not taken into account the expenditure transferred directly to the respective

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MPHALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 260/CHANDI/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

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

29,775/- Less: Expenditure transferred directly to Rs. 89.34,401/ respective account Net Salary & Wages Rs. 2,61,95,374/- Allocated to CWIP Rs. 1,52,03,795/- % of allocated CWIP 58% It appears that there was some confusion in the mind of the Assessing Officer, because he has not taken into account the expenditure transferred directly to the respective

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MPHALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 259/CHANDI/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

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

29,775/- Less: Expenditure transferred directly to Rs. 89.34,401/ respective account Net Salary & Wages Rs. 2,61,95,374/- Allocated to CWIP Rs. 1,52,03,795/- % of allocated CWIP 58% It appears that there was some confusion in the mind of the Assessing Officer, because he has not taken into account the expenditure transferred directly to the respective

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MOHALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 258/CHANDI/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

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

29,775/- Less: Expenditure transferred directly to Rs. 89.34,401/ respective account Net Salary & Wages Rs. 2,61,95,374/- Allocated to CWIP Rs. 1,52,03,795/- % of allocated CWIP 58% It appears that there was some confusion in the mind of the Assessing Officer, because he has not taken into account the expenditure transferred directly to the respective

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MOHALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 265/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

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

29,775/- Less: Expenditure transferred directly to Rs. 89.34,401/ respective account Net Salary & Wages Rs. 2,61,95,374/- Allocated to CWIP Rs. 1,52,03,795/- % of allocated CWIP 58% It appears that there was some confusion in the mind of the Assessing Officer, because he has not taken into account the expenditure transferred directly to the respective

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MPHALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 262/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

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

29,775/- Less: Expenditure transferred directly to Rs. 89.34,401/ respective account Net Salary & Wages Rs. 2,61,95,374/- Allocated to CWIP Rs. 1,52,03,795/- % of allocated CWIP 58% It appears that there was some confusion in the mind of the Assessing Officer, because he has not taken into account the expenditure transferred directly to the respective

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MOHALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 266/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

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

29,775/- Less: Expenditure transferred directly to Rs. 89.34,401/ respective account Net Salary & Wages Rs. 2,61,95,374/- Allocated to CWIP Rs. 1,52,03,795/- % of allocated CWIP 58% It appears that there was some confusion in the mind of the Assessing Officer, because he has not taken into account the expenditure transferred directly to the respective

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

29,775/- Less: Expenditure transferred directly to Rs. 89.34,401/ respective account Net Salary & Wages Rs. 2,61,95,374/- Allocated to CWIP Rs. 1,52,03,795/- % of allocated CWIP 58% It appears that there was some confusion in the mind of the Assessing Officer, because he has not taken into account the expenditure transferred directly to the respective

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MPHALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 261/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

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

29,775/- Less: Expenditure transferred directly to Rs. 89.34,401/ respective account Net Salary & Wages Rs. 2,61,95,374/- Allocated to CWIP Rs. 1,52,03,795/- % of allocated CWIP 58% It appears that there was some confusion in the mind of the Assessing Officer, because he has not taken into account the expenditure transferred directly to the respective