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.

14 results for “depreciation”+ Section 394clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi375Mumbai358Bangalore122Chennai102Ahmedabad70Kolkata54Jaipur38Raipur30Pune22Hyderabad20Chandigarh14Visakhapatnam11Indore11Surat7SC5Lucknow4Ranchi4Cuttack4Calcutta4Jodhpur4Karnataka3Rajkot2Cochin2Telangana2Guwahati2Orissa1Nagpur1

Key Topics

Section 26319Addition to Income11Section 143(3)10Section 14A9Section 809Section 80I9Disallowance6Deduction5Section 1474Section 153A

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

394/- payable by the said party did not seem recoverable and thereby the same was written off in the books of the assessee company. 14. It is emphatically submitted that the fact, that the aforesaid amounts constitute “debt” in the regular course of business has not at all been disputed by the AO. 15. The contention

3
Section 143(2)2
TDS2

M/S PARDEEP ISPAT(P) LTD.,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 150/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

depreciation on furniture and fixtures, were held to be not allowable to the assessee in view of section 115BBE(2) of the Act. In respect of the remaining expenses claimed by the assessee at Rs. 6,37,238/- (7,57,238-1,20,000), in absence of any bills/vouchers in respect of these expenses, the same were held

SHRI. TARSEM GOYAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 157/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

depreciation on furniture and fixtures, were held to be not allowable to the assessee in view of section 115BBE(2) of the Act. In respect of the remaining expenses claimed by the assessee at Rs. 6,37,238/- (7,57,238-1,20,000), in absence of any bills/vouchers in respect of these expenses, the same were held

SHRI RAJEEV GOYAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 149/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

depreciation on furniture and fixtures, were held to be not allowable to the assessee in view of section 115BBE(2) of the Act. In respect of the remaining expenses claimed by the assessee at Rs. 6,37,238/- (7,57,238-1,20,000), in absence of any bills/vouchers in respect of these expenses, the same were held

SH. PARSHOTAM GOYAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 154/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

depreciation on furniture and fixtures, were held to be not allowable to the assessee in view of section 115BBE(2) of the Act. In respect of the remaining expenses claimed by the assessee at Rs. 6,37,238/- (7,57,238-1,20,000), in absence of any bills/vouchers in respect of these expenses, the same were held

PRIYA GOYAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 151/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

depreciation on furniture and fixtures, were held to be not allowable to the assessee in view of section 115BBE(2) of the Act. In respect of the remaining expenses claimed by the assessee at Rs. 6,37,238/- (7,57,238-1,20,000), in absence of any bills/vouchers in respect of these expenses, the same were held

PRIYANKA,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 152/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

depreciation on furniture and fixtures, were held to be not allowable to the assessee in view of section 115BBE(2) of the Act. In respect of the remaining expenses claimed by the assessee at Rs. 6,37,238/- (7,57,238-1,20,000), in absence of any bills/vouchers in respect of these expenses, the same were held

CEIGALL INDIA LIMITED, LUDHIANA,LUDHIANA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 540/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Tarundeep Kaur, CIT, DR(Virtual)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

depreciable assets” of Rs.24.22 lakhs which was adjusted in block of assets u/s 50. The computation of income clearly reflected this treatment and the AO had accepted the same. The PCIT overlooked section 50 which mandates such treatment. 3.6 The AR emphasized that this was a specific CASS issue. The AO called for details, perused the tax audit report, financials

M/S VARDHMAN INDUSTRIES,SOLAN vs. INCOME TAC OFFICER, BADDI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 317/CHANDI/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Ashish Goyal,C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Zeenia Handa Sr.DR
Section 80I

394/-, i.e. 25% deduction, as against Rs. 1,25,57,577/-, i.e. 100% deduction claimed by the assessee. (ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law in confirming the said addition by misinterpreting the provisions of section 80IC of the Act regarding "substantial expansion

M/S KAPSONS FASHION PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, C-2(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1014/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1014 To 1016/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Jaspal Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Smt.Chanderkanta, Sr.DR
Section 250(6)

394,621.00 Events Swastic Audio 77,300.00 Professional Charges Kuldip Singh (Advocate) 100,000.00 Total 8,53,062.00 31. The Ld.CIT(A) upheld the disallowance stating that the assessee had contested only two amounts before him being payment made to Roshan Studios and Wire & Wireless payment made to Hotel Mountview. He further held that on both the said amounts

VTL INVESTMENTS LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. ADDL. CIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

ITA 550/CHANDI/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Dec 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 762/Chd/2009 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 The Acit, M/S Vtl Investment Ltd., बनाम Circle 2(1), (Formerly Known As Vardhman Chandigarh Threads Ltd.,) Vardhman Complex, Chandigarh Road "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabcv7449L Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A), Chandigarh Dated 01.05.2009

For Appellant: Sh. Subhash Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh.G.S.Phani, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 80

section 14A has to be made on a reasonable basis. Almost similar view has been expressed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of 'Maxopp Investment Ltd, & Others' vs. CIT (247 ITR 162). In respect of cases prior to assessment year 2008-09, the different co-ordinate Benches of this Tribunal have observed that certain percentage of exempt

ACIT,, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S VTL INVESTMENT LTD.,, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

ITA 762/CHANDI/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Dec 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 762/Chd/2009 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 The Acit, M/S Vtl Investment Ltd., बनाम Circle 2(1), (Formerly Known As Vardhman Chandigarh Threads Ltd.,) Vardhman Complex, Chandigarh Road "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabcv7449L Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A), Chandigarh Dated 01.05.2009

For Appellant: Sh. Subhash Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh.G.S.Phani, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 80

section 14A has to be made on a reasonable basis. Almost similar view has been expressed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of 'Maxopp Investment Ltd, & Others' vs. CIT (247 ITR 162). In respect of cases prior to assessment year 2008-09, the different co-ordinate Benches of this Tribunal have observed that certain percentage of exempt

VTL INVESTMENTS LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ADDL. CIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

ITA 539/CHANDI/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 762/Chd/2009 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 The Acit, M/S Vtl Investment Ltd., बनाम Circle 2(1), (Formerly Known As Vardhman Chandigarh Threads Ltd.,) Vardhman Complex, Chandigarh Road "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabcv7449L Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A), Chandigarh Dated 01.05.2009

For Appellant: Sh. Subhash Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh.G.S.Phani, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 80

section 14A has to be made on a reasonable basis. Almost similar view has been expressed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of 'Maxopp Investment Ltd, & Others' vs. CIT (247 ITR 162). In respect of cases prior to assessment year 2008-09, the different co-ordinate Benches of this Tribunal have observed that certain percentage of exempt

ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH vs. SHRI KARAJ SINGH, YAMUNA NAGAR

In the result, the revenue’s appeal ITA No

ITA 726/CHANDI/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 726/Chandi/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit-Central Circle 2 Shri Karaj Singh बनाम/ Cr Building Sector 17 H. No 1379, Modern Colony, Near Iti Vs. Chandigarh 160017 Yamuna Nagar (Haryana) "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Atups-5528-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 2. Co. No. 16/Chandi/2024 [In Ita No. 726/Chandi/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Karaj Singh Acit-Central Circle 2 बनाम/ H. No 1379, Modern Colony, Near Iti, Cr Building Sector 17 Vs. Yamuna Nagar (Haryana) Chandigarh 160017 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Atups-5528-A (Cross-Objector) : (Respondent) Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr Assessee By : Shri Dhruv Goel (Ca) - Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-09-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 3, Gurgaon [Cit(A)] Dated 26-09-2022 In The Matter Of An Assessment

For Appellant: Shri Dhruv Goel (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

Section 143(3) of the Act deserve to be quashed as such. 6. That the authorities below have erred in making/confirming additions without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and without adhering to the principles of natural justice. 7. The assessee craves leave to add, amend, alter, substitute or revise any of the above-mentioned grounds before