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.

58 results for “depreciation”+ Section 292Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi58Bangalore49Mumbai28Jaipur13Chennai12Hyderabad8Cochin7Nagpur6Chandigarh5Ahmedabad3Indore2Rajkot2Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 153A82Addition to Income32Section 153C28Section 13226Search & Seizure16Section 25015Section 115J12Disallowance12Section 6910Deduction

ACIT, CC-14, DELHI vs. MAYFAIR RESORTS INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2008/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2023AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Yudhister Mehtani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT(DR)
Section 292CSection 69Section 69A

section 32(2) of Income Tax Act 1961) creates a legal fiction and under that fiction unabsorbed depreciation either with or without current year's depreciation is deemed to be the current year's depreciation but it is well settled, as has been observed by this Court in Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar

ACIT, CC-15, NEW DELHI vs. YASH PAL MENDIRATTA, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessees are also dismissed

Showing 1–20 of 58 · Page 1 of 3

10
Section 194H9
Section 132(4)8
ITA 1863/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Goel, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 69

section 32(2) of Income Tax Act 1961) creates a legal fiction and under that fiction unabsorbed depreciation either with or without current year's depreciation is deemed to be the current year's depreciation but it is well settled, as has been observed by this Court in Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar

ACIT, CIRCLE CC 15, NEW DELHI vs. ALKA MENDIRATTA , DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessees are also dismissed

ITA 1864/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Goel, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 69

section 32(2) of Income Tax Act 1961) creates a legal fiction and under that fiction unabsorbed depreciation either with or without current year's depreciation is deemed to be the current year's depreciation but it is well settled, as has been observed by this Court in Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. RAJAT GUPTA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA 3115/Del/2014 for AY 2010-11 is partly allowed

ITA 3525/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 153ASection 37(1)

depreciation cost etc. 10.3 It is also worth mentioning here that the present assessment has been framed under Section 143(3)/153A pursuant to the search action and where no incriminating material has been found during the search. suggesting that the appellant has received any own money on the property sold in the shopping mall. The reference of the diary

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAJESTIC PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA 3115/Del/2014 for AY 2010-11 is partly allowed

ITA 1748/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 153ASection 37(1)

depreciation cost etc. 10.3 It is also worth mentioning here that the present assessment has been framed under Section 143(3)/153A pursuant to the search action and where no incriminating material has been found during the search. suggesting that the appellant has received any own money on the property sold in the shopping mall. The reference of the diary

M/S. MAJESTIC PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA 3115/Del/2014 for AY 2010-11 is partly allowed

ITA 1623/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 153ASection 37(1)

depreciation cost etc. 10.3 It is also worth mentioning here that the present assessment has been framed under Section 143(3)/153A pursuant to the search action and where no incriminating material has been found during the search. suggesting that the appellant has received any own money on the property sold in the shopping mall. The reference of the diary

M/S MAJESTIC PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA 3115/Del/2014 for AY 2010-11 is partly allowed

ITA 3233/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 153ASection 37(1)

depreciation cost etc. 10.3 It is also worth mentioning here that the present assessment has been framed under Section 143(3)/153A pursuant to the search action and where no incriminating material has been found during the search. suggesting that the appellant has received any own money on the property sold in the shopping mall. The reference of the diary

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAJESTIC PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA 3115/Del/2014 for AY 2010-11 is partly allowed

ITA 3289/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 153ASection 37(1)

depreciation cost etc. 10.3 It is also worth mentioning here that the present assessment has been framed under Section 143(3)/153A pursuant to the search action and where no incriminating material has been found during the search. suggesting that the appellant has received any own money on the property sold in the shopping mall. The reference of the diary

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAJESTIC PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA 3115/Del/2014 for AY 2010-11 is partly allowed

ITA 3115/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 153ASection 37(1)

depreciation cost etc. 10.3 It is also worth mentioning here that the present assessment has been framed under Section 143(3)/153A pursuant to the search action and where no incriminating material has been found during the search. suggesting that the appellant has received any own money on the property sold in the shopping mall. The reference of the diary

SUNIL AGARWAL,HARIDWAR vs. ITO, WARD- 1(3)(3), HARIDWAR

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 988/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri N.K. Billaiyaassessment Year : 2008-09 Sunil Agarwal, Vs. Ito, Ward 1(3)(3), Haridwar Laxmi Niwas, Near Post Office, Kankhal, Haridwar Uttarakhand (Pan: Aanpa0687L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. & Sh. Piyush KrFor Respondent: Sh. K. Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 292CSection 69B

292C of the I.T. Act, 1961. Thus, the AO observed that the arguments put forth in the written submissions dated 2.11.2015 and 10.3.2016 have no credence. Therefore, the AO held that assessee alongwith Sh. Ganga Ram Adwani got registered a purchase deed for Rs. 15,50,000/-, which was actually purchased for Rs. 2,06,00,000/-, in which share

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. UMESH GUPTA, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

ITA 3833/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Vs. Umesh Gupta, Circle-39(1), W-33, Greater Kailash, New Delhi Part-I, New Delhi Pan: Aaepg4743J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Varma, CIT DR
Section 132(4)Section 133A

section 132 (4A) and 292C of the act, same are correct for all purposes. Assessee could not substantiate that those documents are incorrect. He submitted that ld CIT (A) did not consider all these facts but merely relied upon submission of the assessee and deleted the addition. He extensively referred to the order of CIT (A), stated that

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. LEPRO HERBALS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 111/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Rawal, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 145

depreciation, lower profit in the processing of item "solenosol crude extract", difference in exchange, interest in financial charges, selling and distribution expenses etc. 2.7. The assessee has also submitted the following during assessment proceedings:- That during the course of search, no incriminating (i) paper or document was found/seized to suggest that any amount of sale/expenses/raw material cost

PERNOD RICARD INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the recalled matter of the appeal in ITA No

ITA 911/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

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

Section 144C(13)Section 194HSection 40

depreciation under section 32 of the Act while disallowing brand expenses as being capital in nature. 10.1 We find that issue in dispute has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal (supra) in order dated 15/03/2019 for assessment year 2007-08 as under: “23. Ground Nos. 9 to 9.2 relates to disallowance

PERNOD RICARD INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the recalled matter of the appeal in ITA No

ITA 912/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

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

Section 144C(13)Section 194HSection 40

depreciation under section 32 of the Act while disallowing brand expenses as being capital in nature. 10.1 We find that issue in dispute has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal (supra) in order dated 15/03/2019 for assessment year 2007-08 as under: “23. Ground Nos. 9 to 9.2 relates to disallowance

PERNOD RICARD INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the recalled matter of the appeal in ITA No

ITA 914/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

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

Section 144C(13)Section 194HSection 40

depreciation under section 32 of the Act while disallowing brand expenses as being capital in nature. 10.1 We find that issue in dispute has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal (supra) in order dated 15/03/2019 for assessment year 2007-08 as under: “23. Ground Nos. 9 to 9.2 relates to disallowance

M/S. GODWIN RESORT & HOTEL PVT. LTD.,MEERUT vs. ACIT, MEERUT

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

ITA 1841/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Sapra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40ASection 40A(3)Section 68Section 69

depreciation and business loss. In support, he strongly relied upon the CBDT Circular No. 11/2019 dated 19.06.2019 wherein CBDT has clarified that prior to Assessment Year 2017-18 6 I.T.A. No.1841/DEL/2016 income referred to in Section 115 BBE(1) is allowed to be set off from the losses coming from the earlier year or during the year prior

SATISH DEV JAIN,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5955/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153C

depreciation need not be computed as per Schedule XIV of the Companies Act in computing profits for the purpose of section 115J. However, what is significant to note is that the Hon'ble Supreme Court made these observations while directing the Registry to place the civil appeal before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions

SAJAN KUMAR JAIN,DELHI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5949/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153C

depreciation need not be computed as per Schedule XIV of the Companies Act in computing profits for the purpose of section 115J. However, what is significant to note is that the Hon'ble Supreme Court made these observations while directing the Registry to place the civil appeal before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions

ANAND JAIN HUF,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5946/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153C

depreciation need not be computed as per Schedule XIV of the Companies Act in computing profits for the purpose of section 115J. However, what is significant to note is that the Hon'ble Supreme Court made these observations while directing the Registry to place the civil appeal before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions

ANAND KUMAR JAIN,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4723/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153C

depreciation need not be computed as per Schedule XIV of the Companies Act in computing profits for the purpose of section 115J. However, what is significant to note is that the Hon'ble Supreme Court made these observations while directing the Registry to place the civil appeal before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions