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.

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

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai607Delhi518Bangalore116Chennai102Kolkata75Jaipur34Ahmedabad30Chandigarh29Pune22Lucknow20Hyderabad17Rajkot14Guwahati14Amritsar14Indore13Surat13Cochin12Telangana6SC6Karnataka5Panaji5Raipur5Ranchi5Varanasi4Jodhpur4Nagpur3Dehradun2Cuttack2

Key Topics

Addition to Income50Disallowance39Section 143(3)36Section 115J32Section 14A31Depreciation23Section 80I20Section 271(1)(c)16Section 92C15Deduction

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

ITA 323/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2020AY 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

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

Showing 1–20 of 518 · Page 1 of 26

...
15
Section 15412
Transfer Pricing10
For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Malik, Advocate
For 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

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

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

C.I.T vs. INDIAN SUGAR EXIM CORPORATION LTD

The appeals are dismissed

ITA - 989 / 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-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 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 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

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 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 DELHI I vs. CONTINENTAL PACKAGING P.LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

ITA - 829 / 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. 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 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

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

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. NOKIA INDIA LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

ITA - 914 / 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. C.J.INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

ITA - 453 / 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