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.

8 results for “depreciation”+ Section 50Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai162Delhi75Kolkata21Ahmedabad14Pune13Bangalore10Guwahati9Jaipur8Chennai8Raipur7Lucknow6Hyderabad6Indore6Telangana1Visakhapatnam1Jodhpur1Cochin1Chandigarh1

Key Topics

Section 50C20Capital Gains6Addition to Income6Section 143(3)4Section 56(2)(vii)3Long Term Capital Gains3Disallowance3Short Term Capital Gains3Section 2(47)(v)2

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI vs. BIOMED HITECH INDUSTRIES LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands

ITA 327/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.327/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2008-09. The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Biomed Hitech Industries Ltd, Income Tax, Fagun Mansion, No.475, Corporate Circle I (2) Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119. [Pan Aaacb 1953G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Sanjeev Aditya, C.A
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(47)Section 50C

depreciation loss of "25,17,35,230/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer adopted guideline value prescribed for registration of document as deemed consideration u/s.50C of the Act rejecting the argument of the assessee the provisions of Section 50C

Survey u/s 133A2

K.R.JAYARAM,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

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

ITA 1698/CHNY/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Mr.Arjunraj, C.A ""For Respondent: Mr.K.Ravi, JCIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 50C

depreciation allowance or that there has been underassessment or assessment at a lower rate or for applying other provisions of Explanation 2 to section 147 , it must be on material and it should have nexus for holding such opinion contrary to what has been expressed earlier. Even after the amendment of section 147 mere change of opinion does not confer

ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 4(1), CHENNAI vs. MANGAL TIRTH ESTATE LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1965/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1965/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Mangal Tirth Estate Ltd., Income-Tax, V. No. 769, Spencer Plaza, Corporate Circle-4(1), Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai. [Pan: Aaacm-4614-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. N.V. Balaji, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2023

For Appellant: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. N.V. Balaji, Advocate
Section 50C

section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and adopted deemed consideration for computation of long term capital gains. The relevant findings of the AO are as under: From the above noting the following points emerged : 1. As on 31.03.1999, Out of 1,50,000 sq.ft. the assessee company had handed over

D.K.HEATERS,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE -1, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2285/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2285/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. D.K. Heaters, Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of New No.41, Old No.20, Income Tax, 3Rd Trust Cross Street, Non-Corporate Circle – I, Chennai – 34. Mandavali, Chennai – 28. Pan: Aacfd 6086B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl.CIT
Section 50C

depreciated value of the building as on 31.03.2009 at Rs.3,335/- and arrived the STCG at Rs.4,96,665/-. While making the assessment, the AO found from the Annexure 1A of the sale deed, the estimated value of the land at Rs.66,76,000/- and the building at Rs.58,24,000/-. Therefore, he adopted these values and determined the respective

N.MOHAMMED YAKUB,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 852/CHNY/2016[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Sept 2016AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 852/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri K.Meenakshi Sundaram, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Sahadevan, JCIT
Section 41(5)Section 50C

Section 50C of the Act. The CIT(A) called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer during the remand proceedings found that there was inconsistency in the assessee’s claim regarding the usage of the land. The assessee has also claimed that 74 cents of land purchased by the assessee was a vacant agricultural land

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUDUCHERRY vs. VELAYUDAME PONNAMBALAME RAMALINGAME, PUDUCHERRY

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed and the C

ITA 2515/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2515/Chny/2024 & C.O No.77/Chny/2024 िनधा<रण वष< /Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Asst. Commissioner Of Velayudame Ponnambalame Income Tax, Vs. Ramalingame, Circle-1, 72-74, Perumal Koil Street, Puducherry. Puducherry – 605001. [Pan: Aaipr 7831G]

For Respondent: Ms. Sheila Parthasarthy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 56(2)(vii)

section 50C of the Act consideration received is deemed to be the full value of consideration. ITA No.2515/Chny/2024 & C.O No.77/Chny/2024 :- 7 -: Accordingly, the addition confirmed by the Ld CIT(A) of Rs.13,24,353/- is deleted. 5. Ground No.3 is against deletion of addition of Rs.1,46,91,098/- made by the A.O on account of undisclosed sales

V.N.CHANDRASEKARAN,VELLORE vs. ITO, VELLORE

ITA 1193/CHNY/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

For Respondent: 05.01.2017
Section 50CSection 50C(2)

section 50C. 3.2 During the appeal, Ld.CIT(A) directed the AO to refer the valuation of property to the valuation cell u/s50C(2) of Income tax act. The A.O referred the valuation of property to the valuation cell and the D.V.O submitted the valuation report valuing the property at Rs.18,95,544/- (Land at Rs.15,83,576/- and building

PENUPETRUNI CHINNA RAO,CHENNAI vs. ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, WARD-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 401/CHNY/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.401/Chny/2022 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Mr. Penupatruni Chinna Rao Ito बनाम 8, Pughs Road, Sundaram Salai, International Taxation, / Vs. R.A. Puram, Chennai-600 028. Ward-1(1), Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aecpc-1481-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. N.V. Lakshmi (Advocate) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit)- Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 04-03-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25-04-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. N.V. Lakshmi (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)- Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)(v)Section 50C(1)Section 54Section 54B

50C(1) of the Act which has been held to have retrospective operation for the purpose of guideline value, the agreement of sale which took place in the previous year relevant to the AY 2013-14, only should have been considered as the date of transfer. H. The learned CIT(A) erred in endorsing the view of the AO that