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.

4,341 results for “depreciation”+ Section 11(5)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,690Delhi4,341Bangalore1,728Chennai1,638Kolkata1,012Ahmedabad646Hyderabad421Jaipur350Pune335Karnataka257Chandigarh211Raipur194Surat169Indore145Amritsar127Cochin127Visakhapatnam104Cuttack97Lucknow81SC79Rajkot75Telangana58Jodhpur54Nagpur50Ranchi41Guwahati34Panaji26Dehradun22Allahabad21Kerala20Patna20Agra18Calcutta17Varanasi9Orissa7Punjab & Haryana6Rajasthan6Jabalpur4Gauhati2D.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)54Disallowance42Section 14A41Depreciation37Deduction33Section 14819Section 10A19Section 14317Section 271(1)(c)

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

Showing 1–20 of 4,341 · Page 1 of 218

...
14
Section 80J12
Section 115J11

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

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 to an entity seeking exemption in terms of section 11 of the Income Tax Act. (in short 'Act’) which deals with the assessment of Income from property held for charitable or religious purposes. The relevant parts of Section 11 read as follows:- 1. (1) Subject to the provisions of sections 60 to 63, the following income shall

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 on the assets purchased by application of its income, which was exempt under Section 11 of the Act. 5

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

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(5

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)

Section 11(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 made w.e.f. from 01.04.2015 is retrospective in nature and not prospective. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) erred in making a disallowance 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)

Section 11(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 made w.e.f. from 01.04.2015 is retrospective in nature and not prospective. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) erred in making a disallowance 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)

Section 11(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 made w.e.f. from 01.04.2015 is retrospective in nature and not prospective. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) erred in making a disallowance 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)

Section 11(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 made w.e.f. from 01.04.2015 is retrospective in nature and not prospective. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) erred in making a disallowance 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)

Section 11(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 made w.e.f. from 01.04.2015 is retrospective in nature and not prospective. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) erred in making a disallowance of Depreciation

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. AIPECCS SOCIETY

ITA/924/2009HC Delhi07 Oct 2015
For Appellant: Mr Kamal Sawhney, Senior Standing CounselFor Respondent: Mr Ajay Vohra, Senior Advocate with
Section 10Section 158BSection 260A

5 of 71 and because of which, there is crisis of leadership in most walks of life. c) To arrange and provide for scholarship for education to meritorious children of limited means. d) To organize and conduct other activities, which further the cause of education, particularly at school level, and specifically for Gifted Children. e) To promote progress, prosperity

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

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

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 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

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

5. Whether Ld. CIT(A) is correct in law to hold that educational institutions can only claim exemption u/s lO(23C)(iv) and IO(23C)(vi) and not under section 11 of the Act. 6. Whether Ld. CIT(A) is correct In law to hold that educational trusts or institutions cannot collect fee etc from students and charging of such

M/S. HAVELLS INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4695/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Vs Havells India Ltd. Acit 1, Raj Narian Marg, Ltu Civil Lines New Delhi New Delhi Aaach0351E (Respondent) (Appellant)

Section 251Section 40Section 80I

5) of the Act, the loss and depreciation for earlier years had to be notionally brought forward and set off against profits of eligible business in the relevant assessment year. On appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer on the basis that there needed to be a notional set off of preceding year’s unabsorbed depreciation

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. CHARANJIV CHARITABLE TRUST

In the result both aspects of the first substantial question of law

ITA/321/2013HC Delhi18 Mar 2014

Bench: It, Two By The Assessee Relating To The Assessment Years 2006-07 & 2007-08 & One By The Revenue Relating To The Assessment Year 2006-07. In Other Words, In Respect Of The Assessment Year 2006-07, There Were Cross- 2014:Dhc:1467-Db

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(1)Section 260A

5 of 40 pay order. Under Section 12(1) of the Act, all voluntary contributions received by a trust will be deemed to be income derived from property held under trust wholly for charitable purposes, except those contributions which are made with a specific direction that they shall form part of the corpus of the trust. The effect of Section

DABUR INDIA LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/579/2007HC Delhi01 Sept 2008

Bench: We Consider The Submissions Made In Support Of The Appeal The Following Facts Require To Be Noted:- 2.1 The Assessee Is In The Business Of Manufacturing Herbal Products & Cosmetics. On 30.11.2000 Assessee Filed Its Return For Assessment Year 2000-01 Wherein, It Declared An Income Of Rs 12,15,25,093/-. On 10.5.2001 The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1)(A) Of The Act As The Returned Income. However, Notices Were Issued Under Section 143(2) Of The Act. 2.2 In Response To The Aforesaid Notices, Hearing Was Attended By An Authorized Representative Before The Assessing Officer. 2008:Dhc:2521

For Respondent: Mr R. D.Jolly
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 260ASection 32Section 34Section 80Section 80I

5 of 25 allowed the Appeal and directed the Assessing Officer to re- compute the deductions under Section 80 IB and 80 HHC after withdrawing the depreciation quantified at Rs 11