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.

6 results for “depreciation”+ Block Assessmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,540Delhi1,189Chennai544Bangalore513Kolkata389Ahmedabad375Hyderabad192Pune144Jaipur115Chandigarh110Raipur109Karnataka77Amritsar54Cuttack53Indore38Visakhapatnam35Guwahati34Cochin33Surat31Nagpur29SC22Lucknow20Rajkot14Telangana12Allahabad10Ranchi9Agra7Jabalpur6Dehradun6Jodhpur5Panaji4Kerala2Calcutta2Punjab & Haryana1Rajasthan1D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1Orissa1Patna1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)8Disallowance5Section 1474Transfer Pricing4Comparables/TP4Section 144C(5)3Section 1483Depreciation3Addition to Income3

B G EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, DDIT/ ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN, UTTARAKHAND

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 13/DDN/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Mayak Kumar, JCIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

assessed. Ground No. 8: Disallowance of depreciation 8.1 The learned AO erred in law and in facts in disallowing depreciation of Rs.76,33,296 being the difference of depreciation amount between the tax audit report and the computation. 8.2 The learned AO/DRP erred in not appreciating that out of the above the difference of Rs.13,61,733 is on account

B G EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, DDIT/ ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

TP Method3
Reassessment3
Section 44B2

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 47/DDN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Mayak Kumar, JCIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

assessed. Ground No. 8: Disallowance of depreciation 8.1 The learned AO erred in law and in facts in disallowing depreciation of Rs.76,33,296 being the difference of depreciation amount between the tax audit report and the computation. 8.2 The learned AO/DRP erred in not appreciating that out of the above the difference of Rs.13,61,733 is on account

BG EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DDIT/ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE -1, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5/DDN/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun31 Mar 2022AY 2017-2018
For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri T.S. Mapwal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

assessed. Ground No. 8: Disallowance of depreciation 8.1 The learned AO erred in law and in facts in disallowing depreciation of Rs. 1,24,84,806 being the difference of depreciation amount between the tax audit report and the computation. 8.2 The learned AO / DRP erred in not appreciating that out of the above the difference of Rs.51

METRO FROZEN FRUIT & VEGETABLES PVT. LTD.,ROORKEE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, HARIDWAR

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

ITA 1555/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun08 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhry[Assessment Year: 2009-10] Metro Frozen Fruits & Dcit, Vegetables Pvt. Ltd. Circle Haridwar, Plot No.22, Rajpur, Vs Uttarakhan Bhagwanpur, Roorkee, Uttrakhand Pan-Aaecm4521F Assessee Revenue Assessee By Sh. Piyush Kuchhal, Fca Revenue By Ms. Poonam Sharma Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 23.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 08.03.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am, This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.01.2019 Of The Learned Cit(A), Dehradun, Relating To Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:-

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

block value of the depreciated assets, then the AO is duty bound to take adverse cognizance and resort to action under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The discovery of this mistake in the current year does not given any leeway to the appellant to make a grotesque and absurd claim of revision of WDV on account

BG EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DDIT/ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION ) CIRCLE-1, DEHRADUN

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

ITA 7/DDN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun14 Dec 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri V.P. Raoassessment Years: 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. N.S. Jangpangi, CIT/DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 44C

depreciation. In case a decision is taken by the department to accept the decision of Hon’ble ITAT before the final order is passed, the order of the ITAT may be followed to avoid further litigation as the matter become final.” 15. Further, it is observed thatfor assessment year 2011-12 (ITA No. 1478/Del/2017) and assessment year

MB PETROLEUM SERVICES LLC,MUMBAI vs. DDIT, DEHRADUN

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

ITA 1828/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun15 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshmb Petroleum Services Llc, Vs. Ddit, Kirtane & Pandit, H-16, Circle-1, Saraswati Colony, Sitaldevi International Taxation, Temple Road, Mahim, Dehradun Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaecm2604H

For Appellant: Smt Shashi M. Kapila, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Mayank Kumar, JCIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 44B

depreciation to the Appellant under section 32 of the Act in accordance with law.” 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. At the outset, we find that the additional ground of appeal raised by the assessee is a legal issue and does not require verification of any facts. Hence, it is admitted