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.

4 results for “depreciation”+ Section 80Iclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai80Delhi63Chennai15Ahmedabad13Indore10Kolkata10Ranchi6Bangalore6Pune4Chandigarh4Telangana3SC3Karnataka2Jaipur1Cochin1Punjab & Haryana1Rajkot1Calcutta1Amritsar1Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 143(2)6Section 80I4Section 10B4Section 80H4Deduction4Section 2502Section 2532Section 142(1)2Section 250(6)2Exemption

VARDHMAN HOLDINGS LTD.,,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT,,

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 88/CHANDI/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Nov 2018AY 2003-04
For Appellant: Shri Subhash Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Goyal, CIT DR
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 80HSection 80I

depreciation for calculating indirect cost of trading goods while calculating deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act. 54. Briefly stated, the assessee while calculating deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act had calculated the indirect cost of trading goods at Rs.90.76 lacs , by allocating common expenses which were not directly relating to manufacturing or trading units where trading was done between both

2
Disallowance2
Addition to Income2

ACIT,, LUDHIANA vs. M/S VARDHMAN HOLDINGS LTD.,, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 118/CHANDI/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Nov 2018AY 2003-04
For Appellant: Shri Subhash Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Goyal, CIT DR
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 80HSection 80I

depreciation for calculating indirect cost of trading goods while calculating deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act. 54. Briefly stated, the assessee while calculating deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act had calculated the indirect cost of trading goods at Rs.90.76 lacs , by allocating common expenses which were not directly relating to manufacturing or trading units where trading was done between both

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

section 40A(3) of Income Tax Act 1961 .Therefore, this amount of Rs 1,23,299/- is added back to the income of the assessee being unexplained cash credit since the same are not reflected in assessee's regular books of accounts on those relevant dates.. Since the above transaction also violated the provisions of section

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

section 40A(3) of Income Tax Act 1961 .Therefore, this amount of Rs 1,23,299/- is added back to the income of the assessee being unexplained cash credit since the same are not reflected in assessee's regular books of accounts on those relevant dates.. Since the above transaction also violated the provisions of section