Search: depreciation | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

2,468 results for “depreciation”+ Section 143(3)(ii)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,016 Delhi2,468 Bangalore984 Chennai756 Kolkata662 Ahmedabad591 Jaipur295 Hyderabad288 Pune190 Chandigarh176 Indore156 Surat145 Raipur123 Cochin122 Amritsar100 Karnataka99 Visakhapatnam82 Rajkot74 Cuttack65 Lucknow61 Nagpur50 Jodhpur35 Guwahati29 SC26 Telangana24 Panaji22 Ranchi20 Dehradun15 Agra14 Patna14 Allahabad12 Kerala12 Calcutta12 Varanasi8 Punjab & Haryana3 Jabalpur3 Orissa2 Rajasthan1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1 D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)72 Addition to Income70 Disallowance49 Depreciation41 Section 14A34 Deduction23 Section 115J20 Section 14317 Section 271(1)(c)16 Section 147

PITNEY BOWES INDIA (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, out of the five appeals of the assessee, the ITA Nos

ITA 289/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 32

ii) of the Act and accordingly, he denied the depreciation on the non-compete fee. The reassessment was completed under section 143(3

DHARAMVIR KHOSLA ,. vs. DCIT CC-5, NEW DELHI , .

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and ld

ITA 3976/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Showing 1–20 of 2,468 · Page 1 of 124

...

16

For Appellant: \nSh. Rajiv Saxena, Adv

For Respondent: \nSh. Mahesh Kumar, CIT, DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 153CSection 32(1)(ii)

depreciation has been calculated correctly.\n“7. Ground No.3 relates to TDS claimed by Assessee amounting to Rs.25,18,722/-\nas shown in the computation of income at PB Pg 30 while allowing the claim at\nPage 3 of the computation of income prepared by AO the amount allowed as TDS\nwas only Rs.8,14,748/-. Thus, credit

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

143(2) were issued. A sum of Rs.8,60,1600/- was shown by the assessee as the proceeds of the sale of assets, being land. It appears that M/s. Ansal Properties and Industries Ltd. (APIL) owned certain plots of land earmarked for schools, dispensaries, etc. The assessee in furtherance of its objects to open a school, entered into agreements with

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)

3) to the\nfifteenth proviso to clause (23C) of 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

ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

ITA 3768/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 143(3)Section 148

ii) that the Assessing Officer has not applied his mind while adopting rate of US dollar for computing interest liability and therefore, reasons need to be rejected on the ground of non-application of mind also. (iii) that no addition has been made on this account in subsequent years and no case of prior year has either been reopened

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD., DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5611/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA and Shri Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nandita Kanchan, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 264Section 80I

sections on the amount added/disallowed. 19. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in passing the reassessment order beyond the limitation period and thus reassessment order is barred by limitation. 20. That in any case and in any view

M/S. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5581/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA and Shri Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nandita Kanchan, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 264Section 80I

sections on the amount added/disallowed. 19. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in passing the reassessment order beyond the limitation period and thus reassessment order is barred by limitation. 20. That in any case and in any view

AREVA T & D INDIA LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II

Appeals are dismissed in favour of the assessee and

ITA-315/2010HC Delhi30 Mar 2012

Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 32(1)(ii)Section 32(2)(ii)

depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act with respect to the aforesaid amount of 2012:DHC:2226-DB ITA’s 315/2010, 1151/2010 & 1152/2010 Page 4 of 31 Rs.16,58,76,000/- as being a price paid for acquisition of above mentioned intangible assets. (vii) The Assessing Officer(AO) while completing the assessment under Section 143(3

SH. SANJAY DALMIA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result all the appeal filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3795/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri SS Rana, CIT DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)

3) of s. 143, s. 144 and s. 145 shall, so far as may be, apply. This is not the position under s. 153A. The law laid down in Hotel Blue Moon, is thus not applicable to the facts of the present case....‖ 4. Further, the Third Member in Sumanlata Bansal vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) (Third Member)(copy placed

GEODIS OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 483/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C(3)

143(3) read with section 144C of the Income-tax Act (“the Act”) at an income of Rs. 184,341,870 as against INR 72,692,430 returned income. 3. Transfer Pricing Issues: 3.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO / DRP /transfer pricing officer (“TPO”) have erred in disallowing payment

ACIT CIRCLE-59(1), NEW DELHI vs. NEERAJ KUMAR SINGHAL, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 283/DEL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Singh, Sr.DR

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)

143(3) and case was reopened after the expiry of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment years. In this case also the reopening was done on the basis of loss due to alleged client code modification. In view of the above, it is submitted that notice issued w/s 148 of the Act is barred by limitation. II

SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC INDIA (P) LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4386/DEL/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 201Section 271(1)(c)

depreciation. The short levy of tax including interest work out to Rs. 1,05,480/ on amount of Rs. 7,25,447/-. In view of above, I have therefore, reason to believe that an amount of Rs. 4,85,53,424/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147(b) of the IT Act, 1961.” 14. Thus, respectfully following

M/S SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC INDIA P. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5185/DEL/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 201Section 271(1)(c)

depreciation. The short levy of tax including interest work out to Rs. 1,05,480/ on amount of Rs. 7,25,447/-. In view of above, I have therefore, reason to believe that an amount of Rs. 4,85,53,424/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147(b) of the IT Act, 1961.” 14. Thus, respectfully following

KRBL LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 07, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 1199/DEL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 153A

Section 2(p)] (1) When any question arises as to whether any person is a producer or not for the purposes of the Act, the Director on receipt of a complaint in this behalf, shall make enquiries from ITA Nos.1338 to 1344/Del/2020 KRBL Ltd. the Tahsildar concerned, whether the person against whom complaint has been made, either cultivates the land

KRBL LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 07, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 1196/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 153A

Section 2(p)] (1) When any question arises as to whether any person is a producer or not for the purposes of the Act, the Director on receipt of a complaint in this behalf, shall make enquiries from ITA Nos.1338 to 1344/Del/2020 KRBL Ltd. the Tahsildar concerned, whether the person against whom complaint has been made, either cultivates the land

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI vs. KRBL LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 1338/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 153A

Section 2(p)] (1) When any question arises as to whether any person is a producer or not for the purposes of the Act, the Director on receipt of a complaint in this behalf, shall make enquiries from ITA Nos.1338 to 1344/Del/2020 KRBL Ltd. the Tahsildar concerned, whether the person against whom complaint has been made, either cultivates the land

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI vs. KRBL LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 1343/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 153A

Section 2(p)] (1) When any question arises as to whether any person is a producer or not for the purposes of the Act, the Director on receipt of a complaint in this behalf, shall make enquiries from ITA Nos.1338 to 1344/Del/2020 KRBL Ltd. the Tahsildar concerned, whether the person against whom complaint has been made, either cultivates the land

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI vs. KRBL LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 1344/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 153A

Section 2(p)] (1) When any question arises as to whether any person is a producer or not for the purposes of the Act, the Director on receipt of a complaint in this behalf, shall make enquiries from ITA Nos.1338 to 1344/Del/2020 KRBL Ltd. the Tahsildar concerned, whether the person against whom complaint has been made, either cultivates the land

KRBL LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 07, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 1200/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 153A

Section 2(p)] (1) When any question arises as to whether any person is a producer or not for the purposes of the Act, the Director on receipt of a complaint in this behalf, shall make enquiries from ITA Nos.1338 to 1344/Del/2020 KRBL Ltd. the Tahsildar concerned, whether the person against whom complaint has been made, either cultivates the land

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI vs. KRBL LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 1342/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 153A

Section 2(p)] (1) When any question arises as to whether any person is a producer or not for the purposes of the Act, the Director on receipt of a complaint in this behalf, shall make enquiries from ITA Nos.1338 to 1344/Del/2020 KRBL Ltd. the Tahsildar concerned, whether the person against whom complaint has been made, either cultivates the land