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.

5 results for “depreciation”+ Bogus Purchasesclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai901Delhi395Kolkata107Bangalore84Jaipur75Ahmedabad73Amritsar57Chennai52Chandigarh44Hyderabad32Raipur31Indore28Lucknow22Pune22Nagpur21Surat21Guwahati12Visakhapatnam10Rajkot10Jodhpur9Allahabad9Dehradun5Karnataka4Cuttack4Agra3SC3Panaji2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Cochin1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Disallowance5Addition to Income5Depreciation4Section 40A(3)3Section 69A3Section 143(3)2Section 44B2Section 36(1)(iii)2Section 682

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN vs. STONEFIELD CONSTRUCTION, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 215/DDN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun08 Apr 2026AY 2023-24
Section 115BSection 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(2)Section 40A(3)Section 40aSection 69ASection 69C

bogus. 7. Before us, Ld. CIT DR for the Revenue submits that during the course of assessment proceedings, assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of the purchases made from these two parties and filed additional evidences before Ld. CIT(A) however, Ld. CIT(A) without waiting for the Remand Report from the AO has decided the issue in favour

M/S. KVN AUTO ENGINEERING (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO- 1(2), HALDWANI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6446/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun21 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.6446/िद"ी/2016(िन.व. 2012-13) Kvn Auto Engineering (P). Ltd., Plot No. 62, Ramji Vihar, Near Transport Nagar, Haldwani, Uttarakhand ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aadck-9080-A बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer-1(2), ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Haldwani, Uttarakhand अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr (Through Vc) सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 11/02/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 21/02/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Haldwani (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 26.10.2016, For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Raised As Many As Eight Grounds. The Gist Of Grounds Raised In Appeal Is Ad Under:

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr. DR (Through VC)
Section 68Section 69A

purchase by the assessee. The assessee had claimed depreciation on such non-existing plant and machinery, the same was disallowed by the AO on statement made by the assessee. Once the claim of depreciation has been disallowed by the AO, on the ground that there is no such plant and machinery, no addition was warranted in respect of share capital

M/S. SHINGHAL ENTERPRISES,UTTRAKHAND vs. ITO, UTTRAKHAND

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4299/DEL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun29 Sept 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 4299/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Ita No. 4300/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 M/S Shinghal Enterprises, Vs Income Tax Officer, Kashipur Road, Rudrapur, U.S. Rudrapur, Nagar, Uttaranchal-263153 Distt. Udham Singh Nagar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaefs7127C Assessee By : Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. & Sh. V. Rajkumr, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. N. C. Upadhyay, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.09.2021

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. N. C. Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 36(1)(iii)

purchases. On going through the assessment order dated 28.12.2010 and order of the ld. CIT (A) order dated 18.07.2011, we find that the said directions of the Tribunal have not been adhered to and the Assessing Officer has repeated the same line of enquiry and gave a finding that the Gen Sets were bogus. 4. While the premises

M/S. SHINGHAL ENTERPRISES,UTTRAKHAND vs. ITO, UTTRAKHAND

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4300/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun29 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 4299/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Ita No. 4300/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 M/S Shinghal Enterprises, Vs Income Tax Officer, Kashipur Road, Rudrapur, U.S. Rudrapur, Nagar, Uttaranchal-263153 Distt. Udham Singh Nagar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaefs7127C Assessee By : Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. & Sh. V. Rajkumr, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. N. C. Upadhyay, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.09.2021

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. N. C. Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 36(1)(iii)

purchases. On going through the assessment order dated 28.12.2010 and order of the ld. CIT (A) order dated 18.07.2011, we find that the said directions of the Tribunal have not been adhered to and the Assessing Officer has repeated the same line of enquiry and gave a finding that the Gen Sets were bogus. 4. While the premises

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