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.

3,996 results for “depreciation”+ Section 13(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,232Delhi3,996Bangalore1,606Chennai1,412Kolkata872Ahmedabad562Hyderabad343Jaipur294Pune236Karnataka225Chandigarh172Raipur154Indore130Cochin116Amritsar93Visakhapatnam79SC72Lucknow69Surat63Rajkot52Telangana51Ranchi49Jodhpur45Cuttack35Nagpur34Guwahati27Kerala19Panaji14Calcutta13Patna13Agra9Dehradun9Allahabad9Varanasi6Rajasthan6Jabalpur5Orissa4Punjab & Haryana4Gauhati2MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1Himachal Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Tripura1

Key Topics

Addition to Income57Section 115J46Section 143(3)46Disallowance40Depreciation37Deduction35Section 14A28Section 14724Section 80I19Section 143(2)

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

2) and Section 13(3) of the Act. 2014:DHC:1467-DB ITA Nos.321/2013, 322/2013 & 323/2013 Page 34 of 40 29. It is now necessary to examine the other two questions of law. We may take up the applicability of Section 68 in respect of the donations received from Jagjit Singh and Piyush Jain in the previous year relevant

Showing 1–20 of 3,996 · Page 1 of 200

...
11
Section 10A10
Section 14810

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) of the Act in view of the fact that

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)-EXEMPTION, NEW DELHI vs. HAMDARD LABORATORIES (INDIA) , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1311/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri T James Singson, CIT, DR
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 13(2)Section 13(2)(b)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 250

13(2)(b) of the Act and therefore, the assessee was not entitled to avail exemption under section 11 and 12 of the Act. He, therefore taxed the assessee as AOP and computed the taxable income of the assessee at Rs.1,93,93,48,991/- including therein addition of Rs. 31,20,000/- as income from house property and disallowance

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, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3076/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2006-07

Section 10BSection 29Section 32Section 32(2)Section 43A

13,71,80,294) From the above table, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s. 10B without considering the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation and that the assessee has not completely followed section 32(2

PATANJALI YOGPEETH (NYAS),DELHI vs. ADIT(EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2267/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L. P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv.; &For Respondent: Shri N. C. Swain, CIT [DR]
Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(5)Section 13Section 142Section 2(15)

section 142(2A) while confirming the order of the Assessing Officer in denying exemption under sections 11/12 of the Act. 8.2 The ld. AR on queries raised by the Bench responded that assessee trust is not running shops or distribution of products and for those shoppings and distribution and selling of products, as on commercial basis different entity is there

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2196/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2005-06 Ay: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

section 80IA. He submitted that ground nos. 1 and 1.1 of the Department’s appeal are also covered by the decision of the ITAT (supra). The ld. AR further submitted that ground no. 6 of the assessee’s appeal pertaining to disallowance of depreciation is also covered in assessee’s favour by the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6459/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2005-06 Ay: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

section 80IA. He submitted that ground nos. 1 and 1.1 of the Department’s appeal are also covered by the decision of the ITAT (supra). The ld. AR further submitted that ground no. 6 of the assessee’s appeal pertaining to disallowance of depreciation is also covered in assessee’s favour by the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5916/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2005-06 Ay: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

section 80IA. He submitted that ground nos. 1 and 1.1 of the Department’s appeal are also covered by the decision of the ITAT (supra). The ld. AR further submitted that ground no. 6 of the assessee’s appeal pertaining to disallowance of depreciation is also covered in assessee’s favour by the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2799/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2005-06 Ay: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

section 80IA. He submitted that ground nos. 1 and 1.1 of the Department’s appeal are also covered by the decision of the ITAT (supra). The ld. AR further submitted that ground no. 6 of the assessee’s appeal pertaining to disallowance of depreciation is also covered in assessee’s favour by the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. GOVIND NAGAR SUGAR LIMITED

ITA/164/2008HC Delhi25 Mar 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 143(2)Section 32(2)Section 80

Section 32(2) is that unabsorbed depreciation of a year becomes part of depreciation of subsequent year by legal fiction and when it becomes part of current year depreciation it is liable to be set off against any other income, irrespective of the fact that the earlier years return was filed in time or not. ITA No. 164/2008 Page 13

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. FUTURZ NEXT SERVICES (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2396/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Ashima Neb Sr DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)

depreciation on building. The ld. Assessing Officer is in appeal before us on deletion of the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act of Rs.2,12,74,766/- and against the deletion of addition of Rs.94,32,600/- on account of deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 05 We first come to the ground

HERO FINCORP LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 11(1), DELHI, C.R. BUILDING

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

ITA 2542/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 251(1)Section 56(2)(viib)

depreciation is justified and the same is\nconfirmed. Ground nos. 8 to 11 of the appeal are dismissed.\n12.\nGround nos. 12 to 20 of the appeal are against the addition of Rs.418,66,34,625 under\nSection 56 (2)(viib) of the Act.\n12.1\nThe AO noted that during the year the assessee had issued 13492216 no. of equity

ITO (EXEMPTIONS), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. INSTITUTE OF MARKETING & MANAGEMENT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

ITA 3631/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)Section 13(3)Section 2(15)

2). In this regard the first allegation of the AO is that the office bearers of the society are related to each other and as such they have direct impact on the democratic working of the society. This allegation nowhere contradicts or violates the provisions of section 13." 11. As per the provisions of Section 13, there are certain conditions

ITO (EXEMPTIONS), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. INSTITUTE OF MARKETING & MANAGEMENT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

ITA 3632/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)Section 13(3)Section 2(15)

2). In this regard the first allegation of the AO is that the office bearers of the society are related to each other and as such they have direct impact on the democratic working of the society. This allegation nowhere contradicts or violates the provisions of section 13." 11. As per the provisions of Section 13, there are certain conditions

CAIRN UK HOLDING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1669/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Puri CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144

13,68,30,471 Deferred tax liability (net) 425,81,61,061 9,37,97,79,094 Total 302,39,58,18,339 APPLICATION OF FUNDS Fixed assets Gross Cost 152,84,05,817 Less:Accumulated depreciation and amortization 102,17,79,615 Cairn U K Holdings Limited V DCIT ( International Taxation) New Delhi

ANAND EDUCATION SOCIETY,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT (E), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 761/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 761/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Anand Education Society, Vs Asstt. Director Of Income Tax(E) 30, Community Centre, Ashok Trust Circle-Ii, Vihar, Phase-I, New Delhi New Delhi-110052 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Ashish Chadha, CAFor Respondent: Sh. K. K. Jaiswal, DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 147

Section 2(45) of the Act and that the word "income" is a wider term than the expression "profits and gains of business or profession". Reference was made to the nature of depreciation and it was pointed out that depreciation was nothing but decrease in the value of property through wear, deterioration or obsolescence. It was observed that depreciation

ADIT (E), NEW DELHI vs. ANAND EDUCATION SOCIETY, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 1005/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 761/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Anand Education Society, Vs Asstt. Director Of Income Tax(E) 30, Community Centre, Ashok Trust Circle-Ii, Vihar, Phase-I, New Delhi New Delhi-110052 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Ashish Chadha, CAFor Respondent: Sh. K. K. Jaiswal, DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 147

Section 2(45) of the Act and that the word "income" is a wider term than the expression "profits and gains of business or profession". Reference was made to the nature of depreciation and it was pointed out that depreciation was nothing but decrease in the value of property through wear, deterioration or obsolescence. It was observed that depreciation

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TX-IV vs. INDRAPRASTHA GAS LTD.

ITA/67/2016HC Delhi27 Jan 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

2. The dispute in the present lis revolves around land bearing No.1, Man Singh Road, New Delhi ad-measuring 3.78 acres and the hotel building constructed thereon :‘Taj Man Singh Hotel’. The land had been allotted on a perpetual lease by the Government of India, L&DO (Land and Development) office vide allotment letter dated July 13

HAMDARD NATION FOUNDATION (INDIA),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT (E), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1641/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 1641/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Hamdard National Foundation Vs Acit(E), (India), Hamdard Building, 2A/3, New Delhi-110002 Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaath0843G Assessee By : Sh. R. M. Mehta, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Anupam Kant Garg, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.06.2020

For Appellant: Sh. R. M. Mehta, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anupam Kant Garg, CIT DR
Section 10Section 11Section 13(2)Section 13(2)(b)Section 13(3)Section 13(3)(b)

Section 13(3) of the Act without any evidence and without discharging the onus that lay on the AO under the law. 3. That the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the lease transactions were between two Charitable Institutions and no individual had derived any benefit there from. 2 Hamdard National Foundation 4. Without prejudice to the aforesaid grounds even