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.

4,364 results for “depreciation”+ Section 11clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,750Delhi4,364Bangalore1,731Chennai1,639Kolkata1,016Ahmedabad708Hyderabad437Pune367Jaipur356Karnataka260Chandigarh225Raipur194Surat169Indore150Cochin147Amritsar128Visakhapatnam116Cuttack114Lucknow82SC80Rajkot76Jodhpur64Ranchi61Telangana58Nagpur54Guwahati37Panaji26Dehradun22Allahabad21Patna20Kerala20Agra19Calcutta17Varanasi9Punjab & Haryana7Orissa7Rajasthan6Jabalpur5Gauhati2D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1Tripura1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Addition to Income79Section 143(3)56Disallowance44Section 14A41Depreciation39Deduction32Section 14819Section 10A19Section 14317Section 271(1)(c)

ACIT, GURGAON vs. M/S. THE SCIENTIFIC & EDUCATIONAL ADVANCEMENT SOCIETY, GURGAON

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4944/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri L.P. Sahu, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Somil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12Section 12ASection 143(1)

11 (5) of the Income Tax Act 1961. The assessee-society claimed investment in 87.48% but the A.O. calculated at 76.53%. The AO has not allowed the depreciation as per several reported decisions. The AO has allowed depreciation in preceding A.Y. 2006-2007 under section

Showing 1–20 of 4,364 · Page 1 of 219

...
14
Section 80J12
Section 115J10

M/S. SCIENTIFIC AND EDUCATIONAL ADVANCEMENT SOCIETY,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, GURGAON

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4430/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri L.P. Sahu, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Somil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12Section 12ASection 143(1)

11 (5) of the Income Tax Act 1961. The assessee-society claimed investment in 87.48% but the A.O. calculated at 76.53%. The AO has not allowed the depreciation as per several reported decisions. The AO has allowed depreciation in preceding A.Y. 2006-2007 under section

MOOL CHAND KHAIRATI RAM TRUST vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS)

The appeal is disposed of

ITA/141/2013HC Delhi27 Jul 2015
For Appellant: Mr C.S. Aggarwal, Senior Advocate withFor Respondent: Mr. Raghvendra Singh, Junior Standing Counsel
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 260A

depreciation would not be available on such assets. 2015:DHC:5917-DB ITA 141/2013 Page 14 of 35 19. At the outset, it would be necessary to refer to clause (a) of sub Section (1) of Section 11

ADIT (E), NEW DELHI vs. FORTUNE SOCIETY FOR DEVELOPMENT AND PROMOTION OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 2

ITA 2698/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiadit(E), Vs. Fortune Society For Tc-Ii, New Delhi Development & Promotion Of International Business, G-4, Community Centre, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi Pan:Aaatf0849L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anshu Prakash, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Satish Khosla, Adv
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12Section 143Section 2

depreciation or otherwise in respect of any asset, acquisition of which has been claimed as an application of income under this section in the same or any other previous year. 4. The various sub-sections of section 11

CONFRERE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4464/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 12ASection 250Section 251Section 56

11. The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the following additions which are impugned in this appeal: a. Rs. 19,40,343/- on account of surplus claimed as application of income b. Rs. 5,44,011/-on account of disallowing the claim of depreciation on fixed assets 12. That

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, EXEMPTIONS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 167/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, C. A.;&For Respondent: Shri Govind Singhal, Sr. D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 2(15)Section 251Section 251(1)Section 251(2)

11(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act. The Court rejected the argument on behalf of the revenue that section 32 of the Income-tax Act was the only section granting benefit of deduction on account of depreciation

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, EXEMPTION RANGE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 6051/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, C. A.;&For Respondent: Shri Govind Singhal, Sr. D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 2(15)Section 251Section 251(1)Section 251(2)

11(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act. The Court rejected the argument on behalf of the revenue that section 32 of the Income-tax Act was the only section granting benefit of deduction on account of depreciation

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, EXEMPTIONS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 165/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, C. A.;&For Respondent: Shri Govind Singhal, Sr. D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 2(15)Section 251Section 251(1)Section 251(2)

11(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act. The Court rejected the argument on behalf of the revenue that section 32 of the Income-tax Act was the only section granting benefit of deduction on account of depreciation

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, EXEMPTIONS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 168/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, C. A.;&For Respondent: Shri Govind Singhal, Sr. D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 2(15)Section 251Section 251(1)Section 251(2)

11(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act. The Court rejected the argument on behalf of the revenue that section 32 of the Income-tax Act was the only section granting benefit of deduction on account of depreciation

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, EXEMPTIONS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 166/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, C. A.;&For Respondent: Shri Govind Singhal, Sr. D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 2(15)Section 251Section 251(1)Section 251(2)

11(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act. The Court rejected the argument on behalf of the revenue that section 32 of the Income-tax Act was the only section granting benefit of deduction on account of depreciation

RAMA DEVI MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. JCIT, RANGE-2, NOIDA

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

ITA 4434/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 11Section 13Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 40

Section 11 again for exemption of such income. 13. Whether ld CIT(A) is erred in law not to decide the ground of appeal relating to lease charges of Rs 11,37,029/- paid to NOIDA Authority ignoring written submissions filed by the appellant on last day of hearing i.e. 31.03.2017 in respect of this addition and on enhancement notice

G D EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. JCIT, RANGE- 1, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3924/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 11Section 12Section 13Section 234

section 11 & 12 is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action of Ld. AO in computing the income of assessee in the status of ‘AOP’ instead of ‘charitable

G D EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. JCIT, RANGE- 1, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3925/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 11Section 12Section 13Section 234

section 11 & 12 is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action of Ld. AO in computing the income of assessee in the status of ‘AOP’ instead of ‘charitable

G D EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. JCIT, RANGE- 1, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3923/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 11Section 12Section 13Section 234

section 11 & 12 is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action of Ld. AO in computing the income of assessee in the status of ‘AOP’ instead of ‘charitable

RICHMOND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. DCIT/ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4779/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2024-25
For Respondent: \nShri Gaurav Jain, Adv
Section 12ASection 132Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

section 10 of the Act that where a reference,\nunder the first proviso to sub-section (3) of section 143, has been made on or before\nthe 31st March, 2022 by the Assessing Officer for the contravention of certain\nprovisions of clause (23C) of section 10 of the Act, such references shall be dealt with\nin the manner provided under

ACIT, MEERUT vs. M/S. SPACE AGE RESEARCH & TECHNOLOGY FOUNDATION CHARITABLE TRUST, MEERUT

In the result Ground No. 1 and 3 of the appeal of the revenue is allowed and ground No

ITA 4622/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Space Age Research & Vs. Circle-2, Meerut Technology Foundation, Charitable Trust, Railway Road, Meerut Pan: Aabts7321M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjeev Sapra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. SS Rana, CIT DR
Section 13(2)Section 13(3)Section 68

depreciation) Addition during the year is shown Rs. 32347187/- Total value as on 31.3.2009 shown by assessee is Rs. 15,25,57,0847-. The above advance given for Rs. 2,60,51,0007- is not included in the cost of construction. The above advance is not allowable under section 11

PHD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX -EXEMPTIONS

ITA/368/2012HC Delhi19 Oct 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12A

section 11(4A) stands satisfied, the assessee will be entitled to other deductions u/s 11, otherM'ise not. As mentioned earlier, these I facts could not be ascertained by the AO due to paucity of time. Therefore, the matter is restored to the file of the AO to ascertain facts in this matter, hear the assessee and pass a fresh

PHD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX - EXEMPTIONS

ITA/369/2012HC Delhi19 Oct 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12A

section 11(4A) stands satisfied, the assessee will be entitled to other deductions u/s 11, otherM'ise not. As mentioned earlier, these I facts could not be ascertained by the AO due to paucity of time. Therefore, the matter is restored to the file of the AO to ascertain facts in this matter, hear the assessee and pass a fresh

ARTIFICIAL LIMBS MANUFACTURING CORPORATION OF INDIA,KANPUR vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,EXEMOPTION CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD , GHAZIABAD

In the result, we are inclined to accept the findings of Ld CIT(A) and AO

ITA 2586/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT DR
Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 25

Section 11(1) Rs. 24515.09 Lakhs 15% allowable accumulation Rs. 3677.26 Lakhs The Application of income: (extracted from Profit and loss Statement) Cost of material and establishment Rs. 14120.01 Lakhs Less: Depreciation

ARTIFICIAL LIMBS MANUFACTURING CORPORATION OF INDIA,KANPUR vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,EXEMPTION RANGE , GHAZIABAD

In the result, we are inclined to accept the findings of Ld CIT(A) and AO

ITA 2591/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT DR
Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 25

Section 11(1) Rs. 24515.09 Lakhs 15% allowable accumulation Rs. 3677.26 Lakhs The Application of income: (extracted from Profit and loss Statement) Cost of material and establishment Rs. 14120.01 Lakhs Less: Depreciation