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.

13 results for “depreciation”+ Section 50(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,766Delhi2,353Bangalore933Chennai769Kolkata551Ahmedabad427Hyderabad238Jaipur223Chandigarh161Raipur149Pune147Surat104Indore83Cochin79Amritsar78Karnataka66Visakhapatnam61Cuttack57Lucknow49Rajkot44SC42Ranchi35Nagpur30Jodhpur26Guwahati24Telangana20Panaji15Agra13Dehradun13Allahabad11Calcutta10Patna9Kerala8Jabalpur3Rajasthan1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Orissa1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Section 153A20Section 143(3)10Section 153D8Addition to Income7Section 80I5Disallowance5Section 1324Section 153A(1)(a)4Section 153A(1)(b)4

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

50 . As regards di fference in depreciation of other assets o f Rs.2 ,65 ,85 ,446 , the appellant submits that the aforesaid difference is on account of the fact that the appellant had capitalised certain costs as part of the cost of the fixed assets and appellant had claimed depreciation thereon . However , the tax auditor in the Tax Audit Report

SANJAY BANSAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

Section 1534
Transfer Pricing4
Comparables/TP4

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 164/DDN/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad

Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 153A(1)(b)Section 153D

1. That the notice issued u/s 153A of the Act and the assessment order passed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act (‘Act’) is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the assessment order and additions

SANJAY BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 166/DDN/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad

Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 153A(1)(b)Section 153D

1. That the notice issued u/s 153A of the Act and the assessment order passed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act (‘Act’) is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the assessment order and additions

SANJAY BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 165/DDN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad

Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 153A(1)(b)Section 153D

1. That the notice issued u/s 153A of the Act and the assessment order passed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act (‘Act’) is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the assessment order and additions

SANJAY BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 163/DDN/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad

Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 153A(1)(b)Section 153D

1. That the notice issued u/s 153A of the Act and the assessment order passed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act (‘Act’) is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the assessment order and additions

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

50. As regards difference in depreciation of other assets of Rs. 2,65,85,446, the appellant submits that the aforesaid difference is on account of the fact that the appellant had capitalised certain costs as part of the cost of the fixed assets and appellant had claimed depreciation thereon. However, the tax auditor in the Tax Audit Report considered

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

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)

depreciation claim on Global IT & T expenditure was allowable as held by the Hon’ble ITAT in Appellant’s own case for AYs 2010-11 to 2014- 15, AY 2016-17 and AY 2017-18. 8.3 The learned AO / DRP erred in not appreciating that the balance difference of Rs.62,71,563 is on account of difference in opening written

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)

depreciation claim on Global IT & T expenditure was allowable as held by the Hon’ble ITAT in Appellant’s own case for AYs 2010-11 to 2014- 15, AY 2016-17 and AY 2017-18. 8.3 The learned AO / DRP erred in not appreciating that the balance difference of Rs.62,71,563 is on account of difference in opening written

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

50,269/- 1,31,22,153/- Equipments Others 34,74,877/- 30,47,272/- 4,27,605/- 4,27,605/- 0 0 0 Total 3,40,94,290/- 37,38,115/- 4,67,652/- 30,47,272/- 3,52,52,785/- 44,67,084/- 3,07,85,701/- . From the above two tables it is clear that

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

1) read with sections 098 and 1158BE, of the Income-tax Act, 1961-Business Income Chargeable as (Excess stock) Assessment year 2018-19 Pursuant to survey conducted at assessee's premises under section 1334, assessee surrendered amount of Rs. 28.53 lakhs on account of excess stock over and above its normal business income Assessing Officer observed that surrendered income

ITO, HARIDWAR vs. M/S. PRITY JAIN PROP., HARIDWAR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5745/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun21 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shrim. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Advocate
Section 80I

depreciation into account. If such substantial expansion is completed, then, for the purpose of this section, the Assessment Year relevant to the P.Y. in which such substantial expansion is completed becomes the initial assessment year. Once it becomes the initial Assessment Year consequently under sub section (3) the assessee would be entitled to 100% deduction of profits and gains

SAMSUNG HEAVY INDUSTRIES CO. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 873/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun22 Dec 2023AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)Section 234C

1) That the assessee had a PE in India; 2) That the contract under consideration was a composite contract; and 3) That the entire contract revenues (both inside India and outside India) were attributable to the alleged PE in India and chargeable to tax in India on income computed @25% deemed profit rate. 4. The income has been computed

DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN vs. M/S. SAMSUNG HEAVY INDUSTRIES CO. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1315/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun22 Dec 2023AY 2008-09
Section 143(3)Section 234C

1) That the assessee had a PE in India; 2) That the contract under consideration was a composite contract; and 3) That the entire contract revenues (both inside India and outside India) were attributable to the alleged PE in India and chargeable to tax in India on income computed @25% deemed profit rate. 4. The income has been computed