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.

56 results for “depreciation”+ Section 97clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,426Delhi1,140Bangalore500Ahmedabad374Chennai367Kolkata237Jaipur175Hyderabad148Chandigarh109Pune101Indore69Raipur69Amritsar56Cochin56Cuttack56Visakhapatnam52Lucknow42Guwahati29Nagpur27Surat26Ranchi22Rajkot18Karnataka15SC15Agra13Jodhpur10Allahabad8Dehradun7Patna6Telangana6Calcutta3Kerala1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Punjab & Haryana1Varanasi1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Section 26349Section 1043Addition to Income38Section 143(3)26Disallowance18Depreciation15Charitable Trust14Section 143(1)10Revision u/s 26310

MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD.,SAMBALPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), SAMBALPUR

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

ITA 174/CTK/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Jun 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.174/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015 - 2016) Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcm 5188 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.S.Podar, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.M.Keshkamat, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/01/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/06/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am :

For Appellant: Shri S.S.Podar, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.M.Keshkamat, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 35ESection 37Section 37(1)

depreciation u/s.32(1)(ii) of the Act considering it as intangible rights and, accordingly, dismiss the ground of appeal of the assessee. 40 Respectfully following the above observations of the Tribunal, we dismiss this ground of appeal of the assessee. 16. Ground No.2: Valuation of closing stock of coal (due to impact of overburden removal expenditure). We find that this

Showing 1–20 of 56 · Page 1 of 3

Section 14A9
Section 43B9
Section 143(2)8

ACIT, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for the assessment years

ITA 397/CTK/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri S.S.Poddar/N.Kedia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe, CIT DR
Section 143(3)

depreciation by reducing the value of block of assets by sale value. This ground of appeal of the assessee for A.Y. 2011-12 is allowed for statistical purposes. 32 Mah anadi Coalf ield Ltyd., 74. Ground No3(5) of appeal is against addition u/s.14A for assessment year 2014-15 is not pressed due to smallness of amount and hence, same

B.C. BHUYAN CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE- 1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 356/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Girish Agrawalwalassessment Year : 2014-15 B.C.Bhuyan Construction Pvt B.C.Bhuyan Construction Pvt Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle Dcit, Corporate Circle - Ltd., Plot No.90, Palasuni, Ltd., Plot No.90, Palasuni, 1(1), Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aadcb 3304 N (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.C.Sethi, Adv Revenue By Revenue By : Shri Saroj Kumar Mahapatra, Saroj Kumar Mahapatra, Pr. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/07 7/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/0 /07/2023

For Appellant: Shri P.C.SethiFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Mahapatra
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

97,14,379/-. Consequent to the estimation of income of the assessee at 7% of the gross total contract value being the turnover of the assessee, the disallowance made by invoking the provisions of section 40A(3) in respect of withdrawals from the bank by the assessee to an extent of Rs.3,62,71,663/- and on account of bogus

M/S. ODISHA HYDRO POWER CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the revenue as well as the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 13/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

97,148/- made under the head “ depreciation claimed on misc. assets”. 13. It was submitted by ld CIT DR that the ld CIT (A) was not justified in allowing the assessee’s claim of depreciation claimed on miscellaneous assets insofar as the assesse was unable to prove or specify the misc. assets on which the depreciation was being claimed

M/S. ODISHA HYDRO POWER CORPORATON LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the revenue as well as the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 339/CTK/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

97,148/- made under the head “ depreciation claimed on misc. assets”. 13. It was submitted by ld CIT DR that the ld CIT (A) was not justified in allowing the assessee’s claim of depreciation claimed on miscellaneous assets insofar as the assesse was unable to prove or specify the misc. assets on which the depreciation was being claimed

M/S. ODISHA HYDRO POWER CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the revenue as well as the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 283/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

97,148/- made under the head “ depreciation claimed on misc. assets”. 13. It was submitted by ld CIT DR that the ld CIT (A) was not justified in allowing the assessee’s claim of depreciation claimed on miscellaneous assets insofar as the assesse was unable to prove or specify the misc. assets on which the depreciation was being claimed

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

In the result, appeals of the revenue as well as the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 256/CTK/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

97,148/- made under the head “ depreciation claimed on misc. assets”. 13. It was submitted by ld CIT DR that the ld CIT (A) was not justified in allowing the assessee’s claim of depreciation claimed on miscellaneous assets insofar as the assesse was unable to prove or specify the misc. assets on which the depreciation was being claimed

M/S. ODISHA HYDRO POWER CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the revenue as well as the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 282/CTK/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

97,148/- made under the head “ depreciation claimed on misc. assets”. 13. It was submitted by ld CIT DR that the ld CIT (A) was not justified in allowing the assessee’s claim of depreciation claimed on miscellaneous assets insofar as the assesse was unable to prove or specify the misc. assets on which the depreciation was being claimed

M/S. ODISHA HYDRO POWER CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the revenue as well as the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 278/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

97,148/- made under the head “ depreciation claimed on misc. assets”. 13. It was submitted by ld CIT DR that the ld CIT (A) was not justified in allowing the assessee’s claim of depreciation claimed on miscellaneous assets insofar as the assesse was unable to prove or specify the misc. assets on which the depreciation was being claimed

M/S. ODISHA HYDRO POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBAN\ESWAR

In the result, appeals of the revenue as well as the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 277/CTK/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

97,148/- made under the head “ depreciation claimed on misc. assets”. 13. It was submitted by ld CIT DR that the ld CIT (A) was not justified in allowing the assessee’s claim of depreciation claimed on miscellaneous assets insofar as the assesse was unable to prove or specify the misc. assets on which the depreciation was being claimed

ACIT, BHUBANESWAR vs. ORISSA HYDRO POWER CORPORATION LTD., BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the revenue as well as the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 225/CTK/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jun 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

97,148/- made under the head “ depreciation claimed on misc. assets”. 13. It was submitted by ld CIT DR that the ld CIT (A) was not justified in allowing the assessee’s claim of depreciation claimed on miscellaneous assets insofar as the assesse was unable to prove or specify the misc. assets on which the depreciation was being claimed

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

In the result, appeals of the revenue as well as the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 32/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

97,148/- made under the head “ depreciation claimed on misc. assets”. 13. It was submitted by ld CIT DR that the ld CIT (A) was not justified in allowing the assessee’s claim of depreciation claimed on miscellaneous assets insofar as the assesse was unable to prove or specify the misc. assets on which the depreciation was being claimed

ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. ORISSA HYDRO POWER CORPORATION LTD., BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the revenue as well as the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 287/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

97,148/- made under the head “ depreciation claimed on misc. assets”. 13. It was submitted by ld CIT DR that the ld CIT (A) was not justified in allowing the assessee’s claim of depreciation claimed on miscellaneous assets insofar as the assesse was unable to prove or specify the misc. assets on which the depreciation was being claimed

DCIT, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. ORISSA HYDRO POWER CORPORATION LTD., BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the revenue as well as the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 332/CTK/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

97,148/- made under the head “ depreciation claimed on misc. assets”. 13. It was submitted by ld CIT DR that the ld CIT (A) was not justified in allowing the assessee’s claim of depreciation claimed on miscellaneous assets insofar as the assesse was unable to prove or specify the misc. assets on which the depreciation was being claimed

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

In the result, appeals of the revenue as well as the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 255/CTK/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

97,148/- made under the head “ depreciation claimed on misc. assets”. 13. It was submitted by ld CIT DR that the ld CIT (A) was not justified in allowing the assessee’s claim of depreciation claimed on miscellaneous assets insofar as the assesse was unable to prove or specify the misc. assets on which the depreciation was being claimed

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
Section 10

97,091, (-) 1,04,33,615/-, (-) 16,71,912/-, (+) 5,00,504/-, (-) 82,76,269/-; respectively. In other words, all these assessment years except AY 2011-12 have seen more application than receipts since there is nothing left after considering accumulation, revenue expenditure and development heads in assessee’s case. Relevant records indicate that AY 2011-12’s positive figure

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
Section 10

97,091, (-) 1,04,33,615/-, (-) 16,71,912/-, (+) 5,00,504/-, (-) 82,76,269/-; respectively. In other words, all these assessment years except AY 2011-12 have seen more application than receipts since there is nothing left after considering accumulation, revenue expenditure and development heads in assessee’s case. Relevant records indicate that AY 2011-12’s positive figure

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
Section 10

97,091, (-) 1,04,33,615/-, (-) 16,71,912/-, (+) 5,00,504/-, (-) 82,76,269/-; respectively. In other words, all these assessment years except AY 2011-12 have seen more application than receipts since there is nothing left after considering accumulation, revenue expenditure and development heads in assessee’s case. Relevant records indicate that AY 2011-12’s positive figure

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
Section 10

97,091, (-) 1,04,33,615/-, (-) 16,71,912/-, (+) 5,00,504/-, (-) 82,76,269/-; respectively. In other words, all these assessment years except AY 2011-12 have seen more application than receipts since there is nothing left after considering accumulation, revenue expenditure and development heads in assessee’s case. Relevant records indicate that AY 2011-12’s positive figure

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
Section 10

97,091, (-) 1,04,33,615/-, (-) 16,71,912/-, (+) 5,00,504/-, (-) 82,76,269/-; respectively. In other words, all these assessment years except AY 2011-12 have seen more application than receipts since there is nothing left after considering accumulation, revenue expenditure and development heads in assessee’s case. Relevant records indicate that AY 2011-12’s positive figure