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.

7 results for “depreciation”+ Section 80Gclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai184Delhi132Bangalore72Chennai70Ahmedabad56Pune35Kolkata33Jaipur15Lucknow15Chandigarh10Hyderabad9Indore9Cuttack7Ranchi6Amritsar5Rajkot4Visakhapatnam4SC3Cochin3Jodhpur2Raipur2Surat2Karnataka1Agra1Guwahati1Telangana1Nagpur1

Key Topics

Section 80G6Deduction6Depreciation6Disallowance6Addition to Income6Section 143(1)5Section 143(2)5Section 805Section 143(3)5Section 1452

ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DICT, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 381/CTK/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Oct 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Shri P. Venugopal RaoFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80G

section 80G of Rs.7,52,58,750/- arbitrarily is unjust and bad in law. 5. For that the appellant has submitted all relevant documents at the time of several hearings before the Ld. CIT (A) which he has not considered which is unjust and therefore bad in law. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add or to amend

M/S. ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 93/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Shri P. Venugopal RaoFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80G

section 80G of Rs.7,52,58,750/- arbitrarily is unjust and bad in law. 5. For that the appellant has submitted all relevant documents at the time of several hearings before the Ld. CIT (A) which he has not considered which is unjust and therefore bad in law. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add or to amend

ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 333/CTK/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Shri P. Venugopal RaoFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80G

section 80G of Rs.7,52,58,750/- arbitrarily is unjust and bad in law. 5. For that the appellant has submitted all relevant documents at the time of several hearings before the Ld. CIT (A) which he has not considered which is unjust and therefore bad in law. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add or to amend

M/S. ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 92/CTK/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Shri P. Venugopal RaoFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80G

section 80G of Rs.7,52,58,750/- arbitrarily is unjust and bad in law. 5. For that the appellant has submitted all relevant documents at the time of several hearings before the Ld. CIT (A) which he has not considered which is unjust and therefore bad in law. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add or to amend

M/S. ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 375/CTK/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Shri P. Venugopal RaoFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80G

section 80G of Rs.7,52,58,750/- arbitrarily is unjust and bad in law. 5. For that the appellant has submitted all relevant documents at the time of several hearings before the Ld. CIT (A) which he has not considered which is unjust and therefore bad in law. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add or to amend

PARADEEP PHOSPHATES LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

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

ITA 560/CTK/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Apr 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri B.K.Mahapatra/A.K.Sabat, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saad Kidwai, CITDR

sections 4, 5 and 9 of the Income-tax Act. " In the instant case; the amounts have been paid towards purchase of raw material on principal to principal basis and the appellant has procured the goods from the non-resident seller at its own cost after making payments of custom duty, freight, handling charges etc. on CIF, basis

SAT INDER CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,CUTTACK vs. DCIT ASMNT, CIRCLE 2(1),, CUTTACK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 511/CTK/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Sat Inder Constructions Private Limitd Dcit Asmnt, Circle 2(1) Inder Bhawan, Tv Station Road, Aaykar Bhavan, Cuttack, Odisha- Vs. Tulasipur, Cuttack, 753002 Odisha-753008 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aascs8658P Assessee By : Shri P.K. Mishra & B.N. Behera, Ars Revenue By : Shri Nishanth Rao B, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Mishra & B.N. BeheraFor Respondent: Shri Nishanth Rao B, DR
Section 145Section 80G

depreciation. It was the submission by the SAT Inder Constructions Private Limited; A.Y. 2017-18 ld. AR that the ld. AO has not rejected the assessee’s books of account but estimated the income. It was the submission that the estimation of income was not permissible without the rejection of the books. 04. In reply, the ld. Sr. DR submitted