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.

513 results for “depreciation”+ Section 253(4)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai601Delhi513Bangalore112Chennai95Kolkata75Ahmedabad68Chandigarh59Pune54Jaipur42Surat25Cuttack19Lucknow18Cochin18Hyderabad17Amritsar15Indore14Guwahati14Rajkot13Ranchi11Raipur8Panaji7Jodhpur6SC6Visakhapatnam6Telangana6Karnataka5Varanasi4Allahabad4Nagpur3Agra2Dehradun2Patna1

Key Topics

Addition to Income60Disallowance49Section 14A46Section 115J46Section 143(3)34Depreciation32Deduction27Section 271(1)(c)23Section 14318Section 80I

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

ITA 4779/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Jain, Adv
Section 12ASection 132Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

253 ITR 593 (Del) ; Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs Fr. Mullers Charitable Institutions reported in 363 ITR 230 (Kar); Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of DIT (E) vs Sheth Mafatlal Gagalbhai Foundation reported in 249 ITR 533 (Bom) ; Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs Red Rose

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HLS ASIA LTD., NEW DELHI

Showing 1–20 of 513 · Page 1 of 26

...
17
Section 14A(2)17
Section 92C16
ITA 323/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: Disposed
ITAT Delhi
24 Feb 2020
AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Malik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Senior DR
Section 80

depreciation in Appendix I to the Income Tax Rules, 1962.” 18. So, following the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in assessee’s own case (supra), we are of the considered view that AO/CIT(A) have erred in disallowing the claim by the assessee company in respect of plant and machinery used below the ground of field

HLS ASIA LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 3708/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Malik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Senior DR
Section 80

depreciation in Appendix I to the Income Tax Rules, 1962.” 18. So, following the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in assessee’s own case (supra), we are of the considered view that AO/CIT(A) have erred in disallowing the claim by the assessee company in respect of plant and machinery used below the ground of field

HLS ASIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 4144/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Malik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Senior DR
Section 80

depreciation in Appendix I to the Income Tax Rules, 1962.” 18. So, following the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in assessee’s own case (supra), we are of the considered view that AO/CIT(A) have erred in disallowing the claim by the assessee company in respect of plant and machinery used below the ground of field

HLS ASIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. CIT- IV, NEW DELHI

ITA 5511/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Malik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Senior DR
Section 80

depreciation in Appendix I to the Income Tax Rules, 1962.” 18. So, following the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in assessee’s own case (supra), we are of the considered view that AO/CIT(A) have erred in disallowing the claim by the assessee company in respect of plant and machinery used below the ground of field

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HLS ASIA LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 5855/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Malik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Senior DR
Section 80

depreciation in Appendix I to the Income Tax Rules, 1962.” 18. So, following the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in assessee’s own case (supra), we are of the considered view that AO/CIT(A) have erred in disallowing the claim by the assessee company in respect of plant and machinery used below the ground of field

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HLS ASIA LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 2241/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Malik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Senior DR
Section 80

depreciation in Appendix I to the Income Tax Rules, 1962.” 18. So, following the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in assessee’s own case (supra), we are of the considered view that AO/CIT(A) have erred in disallowing the claim by the assessee company in respect of plant and machinery used below the ground of field

M/S. HLS ASIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 2208/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Malik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Senior DR
Section 80

depreciation in Appendix I to the Income Tax Rules, 1962.” 18. So, following the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in assessee’s own case (supra), we are of the considered view that AO/CIT(A) have erred in disallowing the claim by the assessee company in respect of plant and machinery used below the ground of field

CIT vs. NEGOLICE INDIA PVT LTD

The appeals are dismissed

ITA - 986 / 2007HC Delhi06 Feb 2009

253 ITR 791 (Ker) and Nicco Corporation Ltd v. CIT: 272 ITR 58 (Cal). 15. Lastly, it was argued that hardship or inequity is no ground for not charging interest under sections 234B and 234C before allowing MAT credit. It was contended that it is a well established principle that equity has no place in tax laws. It was therefore

THE COMMISSIONR OF INCOME TAX vs. NIS SPARTA LTD

The appeals are dismissed

ITA - 907 / 2007HC Delhi06 Feb 2009

253 ITR 791 (Ker) and Nicco Corporation Ltd v. CIT: 272 ITR 58 (Cal). 15. Lastly, it was argued that hardship or inequity is no ground for not charging interest under sections 234B and 234C before allowing MAT credit. It was contended that it is a well established principle that equity has no place in tax laws. It was therefore

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. CADENCE DESIGN SYSTEMS I.P.LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

ITA - 992 / 2007HC Delhi06 Feb 2009

253 ITR 791 (Ker) and Nicco Corporation Ltd v. CIT: 272 ITR 58 (Cal). 15. Lastly, it was argued that hardship or inequity is no ground for not charging interest under sections 234B and 234C before allowing MAT credit. It was contended that it is a well established principle that equity has no place in tax laws. It was therefore

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. NEHRU PLACE HOTELS LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

ITA - 546 / 2008HC Delhi06 Feb 2009

253 ITR 791 (Ker) and Nicco Corporation Ltd v. CIT: 272 ITR 58 (Cal). 15. Lastly, it was argued that hardship or inequity is no ground for not charging interest under sections 234B and 234C before allowing MAT credit. It was contended that it is a well established principle that equity has no place in tax laws. It was therefore

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI II vs. LEROY SOMER & CONTROLS INDIA P.LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

ITA - 407 / 2008HC Delhi06 Feb 2009

253 ITR 791 (Ker) and Nicco Corporation Ltd v. CIT: 272 ITR 58 (Cal). 15. Lastly, it was argued that hardship or inequity is no ground for not charging interest under sections 234B and 234C before allowing MAT credit. It was contended that it is a well established principle that equity has no place in tax laws. It was therefore

CIT vs. OCL INDIA LTD

The appeals are dismissed

ITA - 1063 / 2007HC Delhi06 Feb 2009

253 ITR 791 (Ker) and Nicco Corporation Ltd v. CIT: 272 ITR 58 (Cal). 15. Lastly, it was argued that hardship or inequity is no ground for not charging interest under sections 234B and 234C before allowing MAT credit. It was contended that it is a well established principle that equity has no place in tax laws. It was therefore

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI I vs. ANANT RAJ INDUSTRIES P. LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

ITA - 456 / 2008HC Delhi06 Feb 2009

253 ITR 791 (Ker) and Nicco Corporation Ltd v. CIT: 272 ITR 58 (Cal). 15. Lastly, it was argued that hardship or inequity is no ground for not charging interest under sections 234B and 234C before allowing MAT credit. It was contended that it is a well established principle that equity has no place in tax laws. It was therefore

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. BRIJBASI ART PRESS LIMITED

The appeals are dismissed

ITA - 708 / 2007HC Delhi06 Feb 2009

253 ITR 791 (Ker) and Nicco Corporation Ltd v. CIT: 272 ITR 58 (Cal). 15. Lastly, it was argued that hardship or inequity is no ground for not charging interest under sections 234B and 234C before allowing MAT credit. It was contended that it is a well established principle that equity has no place in tax laws. It was therefore

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S JINDAL EXPORTS LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

ITA - 402 / 2005HC Delhi06 Feb 2009

253 ITR 791 (Ker) and Nicco Corporation Ltd v. CIT: 272 ITR 58 (Cal). 15. Lastly, it was argued that hardship or inequity is no ground for not charging interest under sections 234B and 234C before allowing MAT credit. It was contended that it is a well established principle that equity has no place in tax laws. It was therefore

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. BIOSEED RESEARCH (INDIA) PVT. LIMITED

The appeals are dismissed

ITA - 719 / 2007HC Delhi06 Feb 2009

253 ITR 791 (Ker) and Nicco Corporation Ltd v. CIT: 272 ITR 58 (Cal). 15. Lastly, it was argued that hardship or inequity is no ground for not charging interest under sections 234B and 234C before allowing MAT credit. It was contended that it is a well established principle that equity has no place in tax laws. It was therefore

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-1 vs. ALLIED STRIPS LTD

The appeals are dismissed

ITA - 791 / 2007HC Delhi06 Feb 2009

253 ITR 791 (Ker) and Nicco Corporation Ltd v. CIT: 272 ITR 58 (Cal). 15. Lastly, it was argued that hardship or inequity is no ground for not charging interest under sections 234B and 234C before allowing MAT credit. It was contended that it is a well established principle that equity has no place in tax laws. It was therefore

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI I vs. ANANT RAJ INDUSTRIES P. LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

ITA - 462 / 2008HC Delhi06 Feb 2009

253 ITR 791 (Ker) and Nicco Corporation Ltd v. CIT: 272 ITR 58 (Cal). 15. Lastly, it was argued that hardship or inequity is no ground for not charging interest under sections 234B and 234C before allowing MAT credit. It was contended that it is a well established principle that equity has no place in tax laws. It was therefore