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.

1,804 results for “depreciation”+ Section 35(1)(ii)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,058Delhi1,804Bangalore846Chennai591Kolkata345Ahmedabad299Jaipur220Hyderabad192Raipur141Chandigarh128Pune104Karnataka77Indore76Surat74Amritsar73Visakhapatnam46Lucknow43Cuttack41Rajkot40Cochin35SC35Guwahati21Nagpur20Kerala18Telangana18Jodhpur14Allahabad10Dehradun9Panaji8Patna8Agra6Varanasi6Calcutta5Ranchi4Jabalpur3Rajasthan2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1S. B. SINHA MARKANDEY KATJU1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Addition to Income59Section 14A51Section 143(3)47Disallowance43Section 115J35Depreciation29Deduction22Section 14317Section 14717Section 80I

M/S. OIL INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4663/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 154Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 36

35(1)(ii) vide Notification No. SO 904€ (37/2006) dated 28/02/2006. The Ld. counsel submitted that further appeal on this issue was not filed before the Tribunal as the assessee was not granted any approval by the committee of dispute (COD) on this issue. According to the Ld. counsel in making the claim no inaccurate particulars been filed and merely

M/S. OIL INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Showing 1–20 of 1,804 · Page 1 of 91

...
10
Section 6810
Section 10A10

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4662/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 154Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 36

35(1)(ii) vide Notification No. SO 904€ (37/2006) dated 28/02/2006. The Ld. counsel submitted that further appeal on this issue was not filed before the Tribunal as the assessee was not granted any approval by the committee of dispute (COD) on this issue. According to the Ld. counsel in making the claim no inaccurate particulars been filed and merely

M/S. OIL INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4664/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 154Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 36

35(1)(ii) vide Notification No. SO 904€ (37/2006) dated 28/02/2006. The Ld. counsel submitted that further appeal on this issue was not filed before the Tribunal as the assessee was not granted any approval by the committee of dispute (COD) on this issue. According to the Ld. counsel in making the claim no inaccurate particulars been filed and merely

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

1)(c)(ii) read with Section 13(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

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DHARA VEGETABLE OIL AND FOODS COMPANY LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2875/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Smt Beena A. Pillai[A.Y 2003-04] The Dy. C.I.T Vs. M/S Dhara Vegetable Oil & Foods Circle – 5(1) Company Ltd [Now Amalgamated New Delhi With Mother Dairy Fruit & Vegetable Pvt. Ltd, Mother Dairy, Patparganj, New Delhi Pan : Aaccm 3174 A [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.10.2018

For Appellant: Shri S.D. Kapila, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 35(1)(i)Section 35(1)(ii)Section 35(1)(iv)

Section Amount Deduction Debited Rs. Allowable In house capital 35(2)(ia) 1,04,235 1,04,235 Mother Dairy Fruits and 35(i)(iv) 1,96,910 Rs. 1,96,910 expenditure Delhi University 35(i)(ii) 9,12,544 11,40,680 Vegetable Ltd. Total 12,13,689 14,41,825 18. In our understanding of facts

ADIT (E), NEW DELHI vs. FORTUNE SOCIETY FOR DEVELOPMENT AND PROMOTION OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 2

ITA 2698/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiadit(E), Vs. Fortune Society For Tc-Ii, New Delhi Development & Promotion Of International Business, G-4, Community Centre, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi Pan:Aaatf0849L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anshu Prakash, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Satish Khosla, Adv
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12Section 143Section 2

ii) of sub- section (1)] of section 32 for the same or any subsequent previous year." 13. The language of the sub-clause c to Section 35(2B) is conspicuous and entirely different and wordings are clear and lucid. The language of Section 11(1), as noticed above, is distinguished and not worded in a similar manner. In Escorts

VEDANTA LTD (SUCCESSOR TO CAIRN INDIA LTD),GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-26(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 6937/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Mishra, Senior DR
Section 115JSection 143Section 144CSection 14ASection 14A(2)Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 928(1)

1,56,03,293) depreciation Total Income 906,05,93,504/- Tax Payable Basic @ 30% 271,81,78,051/- Add : Surcharge @ 5% 13,59,08,903/- Add : Education Cess 3% 8,56,22,609/- Total Tax 293,97,09,563/- Under MAT Provisions u/s 115JB of the I.T. Act, 1961 Book Profit shown in return

ARVIND KUMAR AGARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-18(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 917/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: C. A
Section 10ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)

35 or the second proviso to clause (ix) of sub-section (1) of section 36, as the case may be, shall not apply in relation to any such allowance or deduction; (ii) no loss referred to in sub-section (1) of section 72 or subsection (1) or sub-section (3) of section 74, in so far as such loss relates

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
For Appellant: \nSh. Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: \nSh. Mahesh Kumar, CIT, DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 153CSection 32(1)(ii)

ii) and 32(1)(iia) of the Act.\n3.1 Subsequently, search and seizure operation was carried out on\n22.10.2020 on Shri Imtiyaz Ahmad Shah for which the case of assessee was\nopened vide notice u/s 153C of the Act, in response to which assessee filed\nreturn of income on 01.09.2022 declaring total income at Rs.98,25,914/- as\nwas filed

ASIA SATELLITE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CO. LTD. vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA-131/2003HC Delhi31 Jan 2011
Section 195Section 234BSection 260ASection 9(1)Section 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

depreciation. The Tribunal also upheld the contention of the appellant that the provisions of Section 44C would not be attracted and hence the disallowing provisions thereof would be inapplicable. 23. As regards the levy of interest under Sections 234A and 234B was concerned, the Tribunal held that the appellant would be liable to pay interest under Section 234A. However, with

M/S CONTINENTAL DEVICE INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1319/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

For Appellant: Shri Pardeep Dinodia & R.K. Kapoor, CAsFor Respondent: Smt. Parwinder Kaur, Senior DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 35(1)Section 43(1)

ii) of sub-section (1)] of section 32 in respect of that asset, the actual cost of the asset to the assessee shall be the actual cost to the assessee as reduced by the amount of any deduction allowed under clause (iv) of sub-section (1) of section 35 or under any corresponding provision of the Indian Income

M/S CONTINENTAL DEVICE INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 5656/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

For Appellant: Shri Pardeep Dinodia & R.K. Kapoor, CAsFor Respondent: Smt. Parwinder Kaur, Senior DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 35(1)Section 43(1)

ii) of sub-section (1)] of section 32 in respect of that asset, the actual cost of the asset to the assessee shall be the actual cost to the assessee as reduced by the amount of any deduction allowed under clause (iv) of sub-section (1) of section 35 or under any corresponding provision of the Indian Income

M/S CONTINENTAL DEVICE INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 134/DEL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

For Appellant: Shri Pardeep Dinodia & R.K. Kapoor, CAsFor Respondent: Smt. Parwinder Kaur, Senior DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 35(1)Section 43(1)

ii) of sub-section (1)] of section 32 in respect of that asset, the actual cost of the asset to the assessee shall be the actual cost to the assessee as reduced by the amount of any deduction allowed under clause (iv) of sub-section (1) of section 35 or under any corresponding provision of the Indian Income

M/S. CONTINENTAL DEVICE INDIA LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 316/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

For Appellant: Shri Pardeep Dinodia & R.K. Kapoor, CAsFor Respondent: Smt. Parwinder Kaur, Senior DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 35(1)Section 43(1)

ii) of sub-section (1)] of section 32 in respect of that asset, the actual cost of the asset to the assessee shall be the actual cost to the assessee as reduced by the amount of any deduction allowed under clause (iv) of sub-section (1) of section 35 or under any corresponding provision of the Indian Income

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

The appeals are dismissed

ITA - 462 / 2008HC Delhi06 Feb 2009

depreciation. The rate of minimum tax was kept at a modest figure deeming 30 per cent of book profits as total income. This modest amount is likely to go down further with the downward revision of corporate tax rate to 35 per cent and abolition of surcharge. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 45.4 The Act also inserts a new section 115JAA

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

The appeals are dismissed

ITA - 992 / 2007HC Delhi06 Feb 2009

depreciation. The rate of minimum tax was kept at a modest figure deeming 30 per cent of book profits as total income. This modest amount is likely to go down further with the downward revision of corporate tax rate to 35 per cent and abolition of surcharge. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 45.4 The Act also inserts a new section 115JAA

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

The appeals are dismissed

ITA - 456 / 2008HC Delhi06 Feb 2009

depreciation. The rate of minimum tax was kept at a modest figure deeming 30 per cent of book profits as total income. This modest amount is likely to go down further with the downward revision of corporate tax rate to 35 per cent and abolition of surcharge. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 45.4 The Act also inserts a new section 115JAA

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

The appeals are dismissed

ITA - 791 / 2007HC Delhi06 Feb 2009

depreciation. The rate of minimum tax was kept at a modest figure deeming 30 per cent of book profits as total income. This modest amount is likely to go down further with the downward revision of corporate tax rate to 35 per cent and abolition of surcharge. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 45.4 The Act also inserts a new section 115JAA

CIT vs. NEGOLICE INDIA PVT LTD

The appeals are dismissed

ITA - 986 / 2007HC Delhi06 Feb 2009

depreciation. The rate of minimum tax was kept at a modest figure deeming 30 per cent of book profits as total income. This modest amount is likely to go down further with the downward revision of corporate tax rate to 35 per cent and abolition of surcharge. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 45.4 The Act also inserts a new section 115JAA

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

The appeals are dismissed

ITA - 719 / 2007HC Delhi06 Feb 2009

depreciation. The rate of minimum tax was kept at a modest figure deeming 30 per cent of book profits as total income. This modest amount is likely to go down further with the downward revision of corporate tax rate to 35 per cent and abolition of surcharge. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 45.4 The Act also inserts a new section 115JAA