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.

113 results for “depreciation”+ Section 80clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,983Delhi1,729Bangalore659Chennai593Kolkata355Ahmedabad299Hyderabad140Jaipur137Chandigarh113Pune105Karnataka95Raipur69Indore64Lucknow39SC34Rajkot32Cochin30Visakhapatnam30Amritsar29Jodhpur26Guwahati18Telangana18Nagpur18Ranchi16Surat13Kerala10Cuttack8Patna7Calcutta7Punjab & Haryana6Varanasi5Agra3Panaji2Dehradun2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Rajasthan1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Gauhati1D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1

Key Topics

Section 80I47Section 26346Section 143(3)43Addition to Income37Section 14735Section 143(2)29Section 153A29Section 14828Disallowance28

SBS BIOTECH UNIT II,SIRMOUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 413/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Pal Garg, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 801CSection 80I

depreciation in any year), as on the first day of the previous year in which the substantial expansion is undertaken." 18 23. It was submitted that the circular makes it clear that section 80

Showing 1–20 of 113 · Page 1 of 6

Depreciation27
Deduction23
Section 25316

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

Depreciation calculated as Income Tax Act from Book Profit calculated in the Profit and Loss of Power Division. " Moreover, as per section 80

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

Depreciation calculated as Income Tax Act from Book Profit calculated in the Profit and Loss of Power Division. " Moreover, as per section 80

SHIVA SPECIALITY YARNS LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-I, LUDHIANA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 1049/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Navneet Sehgal, CA and Ms. Naina Gaba Sehgal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 80

depreciation. The AO was of the view that business loss of Rs.19,26,39,748/- is not allowable to the assessee because the return under Section 139(1) was not filed within the time limit provided in Section 139(3) of the Income Tax Act. The AO further observed that as per Section 80

VIRGO ALUMINUM LTD.,SIRMOUR vs. PR. C.I.T., CIRCLE, PATIALA

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 438/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 438/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263oSection 80Section 80I

depreciation and late submission of Form 3AA, and therefore, does not apply to the facts of the case of the assessee, in view of the specific provisions of section 80

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH vs. UNIPRO TECHNO INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the order of the ld CIT(A) is confirmed and the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 693/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri A.K. Sood, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 80I

section 80 IA placed at paper book page No. 29 to 35. The relevant queries raised in the questionnaire are as follows:” “5. As per information filed by you, it has seen that you had undertaken contract for providing lift water supply scheme from Executive Engineer, IPH and claimed this income as exempt u/s 80IA and got sub-contract from

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 under the Act has been computed. [Para 5] In the instant case, after the service of the notice under section 148, the assessee had filed its objections for reopening the assessment to the effect that in the light of the binding decision of High Court and the decision of the Tribunal there

M/S NECTAR LIFESCIENCE LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1497/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Feb 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Monga, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT, DR
Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 271Section 80

80-IA for transfer of steam. 4. That the Ld. AO/TPO erred on facts and in law in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961 despite the fact that complete information was disclosed and nothing was concealed. 5. The assessee craves leave to alter, amend or withdraw all or any of the objections herein

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,KALA AMB vs. ITO, SIRMOUR

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

ITA 61/CHANDI/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Aditya Sood, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253Section 80I

80 IC. Counsel of the assessee has also referred to a case reported in 225 ITR 814 (SC). In the reported case assessee is carrying out business of sale and purchase of chillies. The chillies purchased by the assessee are sorted, graded as per Agmark specifications. Better quality chillies are picked up and sorted out for export and before export

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,SIRMOUR vs. ADDL. CIT, SOLAN

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

ITA 388/CHANDI/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jul 2024AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Aditya Sood, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253Section 80I

80 IC. Counsel of the assessee has also referred to a case reported in 225 ITR 814 (SC). In the reported case assessee is carrying out business of sale and purchase of chillies. The chillies purchased by the assessee are sorted, graded as per Agmark specifications. Better quality chillies are picked up and sorted out for export and before export

ASPEE SONS,SOLAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PARWANOO, PARWANOO

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1167/CHANDI/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80I

80-IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The case was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed under Section 143(3) on 18.11.2016, wherein the Ld. AO made two disallowances: (i) Rs. 18,33,710/- towards ineligible profits from insurance claims and foreign exchange fluctuation not derived from manufacturing activity, and (ii) Rs. 9,86,497/- for excess deduction

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

M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, C-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 187/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, Advocate and Shri Pankaj Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 80I

80 IA on insurance claim, Foreign Exchange Rate, interest from customers / suppliers, and commission from Ocean Freight. Such deduction was, however, disallowed on miscellaneous income and interest from banks. 16.2 The assessee has up against the confirmation of reduction of rent received of Rs. 2,09,73,193/-, miscellaneous income of Rs. 65,47,626/- and interest from banks

VARDHMAN TEXTILES LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT-CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 61/CHANDI/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, Advocate and Shri Pankaj Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 80I

80 IA on insurance claim, Foreign Exchange Rate, interest from customers / suppliers, and commission from Ocean Freight. Such deduction was, however, disallowed on miscellaneous income and interest from banks. 16.2 The assessee has up against the confirmation of reduction of rent received of Rs. 2,09,73,193/-, miscellaneous income of Rs. 65,47,626/- and interest from banks

M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, C-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 486/CHANDI/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, Advocate and Shri Pankaj Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 80I

80 IA on insurance claim, Foreign Exchange Rate, interest from customers / suppliers, and commission from Ocean Freight. Such deduction was, however, disallowed on miscellaneous income and interest from banks. 16.2 The assessee has up against the confirmation of reduction of rent received of Rs. 2,09,73,193/-, miscellaneous income of Rs. 65,47,626/- and interest from banks

ACIT,CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA vs. M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 117/CHANDI/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, Advocate and Shri Pankaj Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 80I

80 IA on insurance claim, Foreign Exchange Rate, interest from customers / suppliers, and commission from Ocean Freight. Such deduction was, however, disallowed on miscellaneous income and interest from banks. 16.2 The assessee has up against the confirmation of reduction of rent received of Rs. 2,09,73,193/-, miscellaneous income of Rs. 65,47,626/- and interest from banks

DCIT, C-1, LUDHIANA vs. M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LIMITED, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 260/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, Advocate and Shri Pankaj Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 80I

80 IA on insurance claim, Foreign Exchange Rate, interest from customers / suppliers, and commission from Ocean Freight. Such deduction was, however, disallowed on miscellaneous income and interest from banks. 16.2 The assessee has up against the confirmation of reduction of rent received of Rs. 2,09,73,193/-, miscellaneous income of Rs. 65,47,626/- and interest from banks

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

Section 147 is attracted. The reasons to believe ought to also paraphrase any investigation report which may form the basis of the reasons and any enquiry conducted by the AO on the same and if so, the conclusions thereof; (iii) where the reasons make a reference to another document, whether as a letter or report, such document and/ or relevant

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

depreciation as per provisions of Income Tax Act. 5.6 From the summary of the findings of the Ld. PCIT reproduced hereinabove we can safely conclude that The AO did conduct enquiries on all scrutiny issues, considered assessee’s  submissions, and recorded findings. The PCIT has not demonstrated what specific further enquiry was  necessary or how AO’s view was unsustainable

KANDI FRIENDS EDUCATIONAL TRUST,ROPAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 797/CHANDI/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

80,000 Disallowance of Travelling Expenses 3,11,689 Disallowance of Interest on Advances related to 12,09,345 AME Course Disallowance of Revenue Expenditure on AME 14,23,348 Course Non-utilisation of accumulated Funds (FY 2013- 2,90,55,422 14) Excess income over expenditure 1,65,94,302 Total Taxable income