Search: depreciation | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

176 results for “depreciation”+ Section 11clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,738 Delhi4,348 Bangalore1,722 Chennai1,607 Ahmedabad1,088 Kolkata1,008 Pune659 Hyderabad545 Jaipur497 Chandigarh348 Karnataka260 Cochin224 Raipur210 Visakhapatnam207 Surat201 Indore198 Cuttack176 Amritsar148 Rajkot90 Lucknow90 SC80 Jodhpur68 Nagpur68 Ranchi67 Guwahati62 Telangana58 Agra32 Panaji26 Dehradun22 Allahabad21 Patna21 Kerala20 Calcutta17 Varanasi9 Punjab & Haryana7 Orissa7 Jabalpur7 Rajasthan6 Gauhati2 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1 D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1 MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1 Tripura1 A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Section 26379 Section 143(3)56 Addition to Income56 Disallowance46 Section 1042 Depreciation31 Section 153A27 Section 14A21 Section 143(2)21 Limitation/Time-bar

THE DHAMRA PORT COMPANY LIMITED,ODISHA vs. DCIT,CIRCLE 1(2), BHUBANESWAR, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, RAJASWA VIHAR, BHUBANESWAR, ORISSA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed with the direction

ITA 309/CTK/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack18 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250

section 115JB has to be computed before depreciation. 11. The basic rule of interpretation of the provisions is the 'strict

DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. S.M.CHARITABLE EDUCATIONAL TRUST, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 431/CTK/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

Showing 1–20 of 176 · Page 1 of 9

...

20

Section 143(1)18

For Appellant: Sri Bibekananda Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohapatra, CIT DR

Section 11Section 11(3)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)Section 13(1)(c)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

section 11 of the Act to the appellant. The Hon’ble Tribunal affirmed the order of the CIT(Appeals) directing A.O. to allow exemption u/s.11 and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue vide the above oder. For the previous year relevant to the A.Y. 2009-10, under consideration, the A.O. denied the exemption claimed u/s.ll in the year under consideration

DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. S.M.CHARITABLE EDUCATIONAL TRUST, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 432/CTK/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Sri Bibekananda Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohapatra, CIT DR

Section 11Section 11(3)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)Section 13(1)(c)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

section 11 of the Act to the appellant. The Hon’ble Tribunal affirmed the order of the CIT(Appeals) directing A.O. to allow exemption u/s.11 and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue vide the above oder. For the previous year relevant to the A.Y. 2009-10, under consideration, the A.O. denied the exemption claimed u/s.ll in the year under consideration

DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. S.M.CHARITABLE EDUCATIONAL TRUST, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 430/CTK/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Sri Bibekananda Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohapatra, CIT DR

Section 11Section 11(3)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)Section 13(1)(c)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

section 11 of the Act to the appellant. The Hon’ble Tribunal affirmed the order of the CIT(Appeals) directing A.O. to allow exemption u/s.11 and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue vide the above oder. For the previous year relevant to the A.Y. 2009-10, under consideration, the A.O. denied the exemption claimed u/s.ll in the year under consideration

SOCIETY FOR THE WELFARE OF WEAKER SECTIONS,GAJAPATI vs. DCIT, BERHAMPUR CIRCLE, BERHAMPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee with regard to ground Nos

ITA 345/CTK/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.345/Ctk/2016 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011) Society For The Welfare Of Vs. Dcit, Berhampur Circle, Weaker Sections, Berhampur Near Dfo Office, Ramsagar Road, Parlakhemundi-761200, Odisha स्थायी लेखा सं./Panno. : Aacts 4037 K (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Harichandan, Advocate िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri J.K.Lenka, Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/11/2019 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-3, Bhubaneswar, Dated 26.05.2016 For Assessment Year 2010- 2011. 2. The Assessee Has Filed Concised Grounds Of Appeal, Which Read As Under :- 1. That, The Addition Of Rs.60,000/- On Account Of Donation, By The Id.Ao As Well As Confirmed By The Id Cit (A) Treating The Same, As Anonymous Donation U/S 115Bbc Of The It Act Is Arbitrary .Excessive & Bad In Law. 2. That, The Id. Ao As Well As Cit(A), Without Properly Appreciating The Facts Of The Case & Verifying The Books Of Accounts, Has Wrongly Added Towards Indirect Income Rs. 14,46,915/- Treating The Same, As Income From Unexplained Source In The Nature

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Harichandan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Lenka, DR

Section 11Section 115BSection 12ASection 143(2)Section 234

depreciation claimed by the assessee is allowable. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble High Court at para 11 read as under :- “11. By Finance (No. 2) Act of 2014, sub-section

ROLAND INSTITUTE OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 268/CTK/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year): ................ Relevant extract reproduced A bare reading of the foregoing provision suggests that reason to believe and escapement of income are the jurisdictional requirements for invoking section

ROLAND INSTITUTE OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 266/CTK/2019[2008--09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year): ................ Relevant extract reproduced A bare reading of the foregoing provision suggests that reason to believe and escapement of income are the jurisdictional requirements for invoking section

ROLAND INSTITUTE OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 270/CTK/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year): ................ Relevant extract reproduced A bare reading of the foregoing provision suggests that reason to believe and escapement of income are the jurisdictional requirements for invoking section

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BERHAMPUR vs. DCIT, BERHAMPUR CIRCLE, BERHAMPUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 471/CTK/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year): ................ Relevant extract reproduced A bare reading of the foregoing provision suggests that reason to believe and escapement of income are the jurisdictional requirements for invoking section

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 261/CTK/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year): ................ Relevant extract reproduced A bare reading of the foregoing provision suggests that reason to believe and escapement of income are the jurisdictional requirements for invoking section

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BERHAMPUR vs. DCIT, BERHAMPUR CIRCLE, BERHAMPUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 470/CTK/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year): ................ Relevant extract reproduced A bare reading of the foregoing provision suggests that reason to believe and escapement of income are the jurisdictional requirements for invoking section

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 265/CTK/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year): ................ Relevant extract reproduced A bare reading of the foregoing provision suggests that reason to believe and escapement of income are the jurisdictional requirements for invoking section

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 264/CTK/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year): ................ Relevant extract reproduced A bare reading of the foregoing provision suggests that reason to believe and escapement of income are the jurisdictional requirements for invoking section

ROLAND INSTITUTE OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 269/CTK/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year): ................ Relevant extract reproduced A bare reading of the foregoing provision suggests that reason to believe and escapement of income are the jurisdictional requirements for invoking section

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BERHAMPUR vs. DCIT, BERHAMPUR CIRCLE, BERHAMPUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 469/CTK/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year): ................ Relevant extract reproduced A bare reading of the foregoing provision suggests that reason to believe and escapement of income are the jurisdictional requirements for invoking section

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 262/CTK/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year): ................ Relevant extract reproduced A bare reading of the foregoing provision suggests that reason to believe and escapement of income are the jurisdictional requirements for invoking section

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 263/CTK/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year): ................ Relevant extract reproduced A bare reading of the foregoing provision suggests that reason to believe and escapement of income are the jurisdictional requirements for invoking section

ROLAND INSTITUTE OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 267/CTK/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year): ................ Relevant extract reproduced A bare reading of the foregoing provision suggests that reason to believe and escapement of income are the jurisdictional requirements for invoking section

RONALD EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 368/CTK/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year): ................ Relevant extract reproduced A bare reading of the foregoing provision suggests that reason to believe and escapement of income are the jurisdictional requirements for invoking section

ADHIKAR,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 255/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2012-2013

For Appellant: Shri S.C.Bhadra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta, DR

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 28Section 29Section 30Section 32Section 32(1)Section 34Section 43C

11(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act. The court rejected the argument on behalf of the Revenue that section 32 of the Income-tax Act was the only section granting benefit of deduction on account of depreciation