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.

3 results for “section 68”+ Section 43Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai44Delhi36Chennai35Hyderabad21Ahmedabad16Bangalore15Pune10Cochin3Chandigarh3SC3Kolkata3Rajkot3Amritsar3Telangana2Patna2Kerala1Surat1Jaipur1

Key Topics

Section 80I8Section 2636Section 92C4Depreciation3Section 143(3)2Section 145(3)2Section 133A2Transfer Pricing2Deduction2Comparables/TP

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

43D including depreciation under Section 32 of the Act as so laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Plastiblends India limited (supra) wherein it was held that there is no choice with the assessee to claim or not to claim depreciation and the same has to be necessary considered while computing the eligible profits

2

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

43D including depreciation under Section 32 of the Act as so laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Plastiblends India limited (supra) wherein it was held that there is no choice with the assessee to claim or not to claim depreciation and the same has to be necessary considered while computing the eligible profits

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

68,20,164/- for certain overdrafts limits and for depreciation, the complete particulars have been given in the audited balance sheet and for which, the Ld. Assessing Officer had not raised any doubt. The total depreciation claimed has been to the tune of Rs. 1,48,84,802/- and the fact that the depreciation is to be allowed, even