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”+ Section 57clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,928Delhi1,581Bangalore690Chennai484Kolkata341Ahmedabad256Jaipur134Hyderabad134Chandigarh126Pune104Raipur77Indore65Surat53Karnataka46Cochin46Rajkot41Lucknow36Ranchi33Visakhapatnam30Amritsar27SC21Jodhpur20Cuttack20Nagpur13Agra10Panaji10Telangana9Guwahati8Allahabad7Patna6Varanasi6Dehradun5Jabalpur3Calcutta2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Punjab & Haryana1Kerala1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)7Section 1474Disallowance4Section 144C(5)3Section 1483Transfer Pricing3Comparables/TP3TP Method3Reassessment3Section 43(1)

ACIT, UTTRAKHAND vs. M/S. UTTARANCHAL JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 736/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun24 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Vs. Uttaranchal Jal Vidyut Circle-2, Nigam Ltd., 13-A, Subhash Road, Ujjwal, Maharani Bagh, Uttarakhand. Gms Road, Dehradun. Pan: Aaacu6672R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate & Shri Somil Aggarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Poonam Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29Th December, 2016 Of The Cit(A), Dehradun, Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Only Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue Reads As Under:- “1. The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts By Allowing Depreciation On Assets For Which The Actual Cost As Per Section 43(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Was Nil. 2. The Order Of The Ld.Cit(Appeals) Be Set Aside & That Of The Assessing Officer Be Restored.”

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 32Section 43Section 43(1)
2
Section 322
Section 432

Section 43(1) of the Act. This has been negated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 09th May 2013 reported in 355 ITR 188(Del) by observing as under: "26. The scheme of hiving off the business of telecom services by Government of India to a corporate entity entailed incorporation of a wholly owned government company

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 on these assets. In view of this ground No. 5 of the appeal of the Assessee is allowed’' 38. The Tribunal in appellant's own case for the assessment years 2011-12 (ITA No. 1478/Del/2017), 2012- 13 (ITA No. 6791/Del./2017), 2013-14 (ITA No. 7476/Del/2018) and 2014-15 (ITA No. 7477/Del/2018), 2016- 17 (ITA No.7/DDN/2019

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 on these assets. In view of this ground No. 5 of the appeal of the Assessee is allowed’' 38. The Tribunal in appellant's own case for the assessment years 2011-12 (ITA No. 1478/Del/2017), 2012- 13 (ITA No. 6791/Del./2017), 2013-14 (ITA No. 7476/Del/2018) and 2014-15 (ITA No. 7477/Del/2018), 2016- 17 (ITA No.7/DDN/2019

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

57,216 incurred on non- producing PSCs. 8.2. The learned AO / DRP erred in not appreciating the fact that set off of expenditure of non-producing PSC against the income of PSC in which commercial production has been commenced is in accordance with the provisions of the Act and provisions of PSC. 8.3. The learned AO / DRP erred

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

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 of subsidy in the present