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.

433 results for “depreciation”+ Section 40A(7)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai557Delhi433Bangalore154Chennai125Ahmedabad108Kolkata105Raipur93Jaipur52Amritsar48Hyderabad47Surat36Chandigarh25Indore23Pune21Cochin20Visakhapatnam15Rajkot11Guwahati10Lucknow9Cuttack8Jodhpur6Varanasi5Patna4Karnataka4SC3Agra3Dehradun3Ranchi3Nagpur2Calcutta2Allahabad1Jabalpur1Telangana1Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 14A88Section 143(3)81Addition to Income70Disallowance67Depreciation46Section 26337Deduction37Section 4022Section 143(1)22Section 40A(3)

J.D. WINES,GURGAON vs. ADDL. CIT, GURGAON

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

ITA 563/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2019AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Sh. Vinod Kr. Garg, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Deepak Garg, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 40A(3)Section 43B

section as per proviso to Sec 40A(3). (b) Without prejudice to above the appellant disputes that the quantum of addition confirmed is on higher side. 4.(a) That the ld CIT(A) is not justified in dismissing the ground of appeal regarding disallowance of depreciation of Rs.71850/- on Motor Lorry due to difference in cost price amounting to Rs.239500

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

ITA 3883/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 433 · Page 1 of 22

...
16
Section 143(2)16
Section 153A16
ITAT Delhi
18 Apr 2019
AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I Bara, CIT DR
Section 142Section 147Section 153Section 153ASection 201(1)Section 36Section 40Section 40A(3)

7. Second ground of appeal is with respect to disallowance u/s 40A (3) of The Act amounting to Rs 33,90,712/–. learned assessing officer noted that special auditor has reported that expenses aggregating to INR 33,90,712/– have been made in violation of provisions of section 40A (3) of The Act. In submission of assessee, there

DCIT, INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, GURGAON vs. CAIRN ENERGY HYDROCARBON LTD. , GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5988/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6357/Del/2013: Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vs Cairn Energy Hydrocarbon Ltd., C/O. Cairn India Ltd., 3Rd & 4Th Circle-3(2), International Taxation, Floor, Vipul Plaza, Suncity, Sector- New Delhi 54, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccc3279J

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT-DR
Section 40aSection 57Section 80I

depreciation’. 7. The revenue has raised the following grounds in ITA No. 5989/Del/2018 for Assessment Year 2014-15:- “1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the exploration and development expenditure of Rs. 8,79,43,82,537/- which had been disallowed by the AO on the ground

DDIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CAIRN ENERGY HYDROCARBONS LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6357/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6357/Del/2013: Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vs Cairn Energy Hydrocarbon Ltd., C/O. Cairn India Ltd., 3Rd & 4Th Circle-3(2), International Taxation, Floor, Vipul Plaza, Suncity, Sector- New Delhi 54, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccc3279J

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT-DR
Section 40aSection 57Section 80I

depreciation’. 7. The revenue has raised the following grounds in ITA No. 5989/Del/2018 for Assessment Year 2014-15:- “1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the exploration and development expenditure of Rs. 8,79,43,82,537/- which had been disallowed by the AO on the ground

CAIRN ENERGY HYDROCARBONS LTD.,GURGAON vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6346/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6357/Del/2013: Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vs Cairn Energy Hydrocarbon Ltd., C/O. Cairn India Ltd., 3Rd & 4Th Circle-3(2), International Taxation, Floor, Vipul Plaza, Suncity, Sector- New Delhi 54, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccc3279J

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT-DR
Section 40aSection 57Section 80I

depreciation’. 7. The revenue has raised the following grounds in ITA No. 5989/Del/2018 for Assessment Year 2014-15:- “1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the exploration and development expenditure of Rs. 8,79,43,82,537/- which had been disallowed by the AO on the ground

DCIT, INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, GURGAON vs. CAIRN ENERGY HYDROCARBON LTD. , GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5989/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6357/Del/2013: Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vs Cairn Energy Hydrocarbon Ltd., C/O. Cairn India Ltd., 3Rd & 4Th Circle-3(2), International Taxation, Floor, Vipul Plaza, Suncity, Sector- New Delhi 54, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccc3279J

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT-DR
Section 40aSection 57Section 80I

depreciation’. 7. The revenue has raised the following grounds in ITA No. 5989/Del/2018 for Assessment Year 2014-15:- “1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the exploration and development expenditure of Rs. 8,79,43,82,537/- which had been disallowed by the AO on the ground

CAIRN ENERGY HYDROCARBON LTD. ,GURGAON vs. DCIT, INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6278/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6357/Del/2013: Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vs Cairn Energy Hydrocarbon Ltd., C/O. Cairn India Ltd., 3Rd & 4Th Circle-3(2), International Taxation, Floor, Vipul Plaza, Suncity, Sector- New Delhi 54, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccc3279J

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT-DR
Section 40aSection 57Section 80I

depreciation’. 7. The revenue has raised the following grounds in ITA No. 5989/Del/2018 for Assessment Year 2014-15:- “1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the exploration and development expenditure of Rs. 8,79,43,82,537/- which had been disallowed by the AO on the ground

CAIRN ENERGY HYDROCARBON LTD. ,GURGAON vs. DCIT, INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6277/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6357/Del/2013: Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vs Cairn Energy Hydrocarbon Ltd., C/O. Cairn India Ltd., 3Rd & 4Th Circle-3(2), International Taxation, Floor, Vipul Plaza, Suncity, Sector- New Delhi 54, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccc3279J

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT-DR
Section 40aSection 57Section 80I

depreciation’. 7. The revenue has raised the following grounds in ITA No. 5989/Del/2018 for Assessment Year 2014-15:- “1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the exploration and development expenditure of Rs. 8,79,43,82,537/- which had been disallowed by the AO on the ground

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI VI vs. TRIVENI ENGINEERING & INDUSTRIES LTD.

Appeals are disposed of accordingly

ITA/280/2008HC Delhi05 Aug 2010

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL

Section 32(1)Section 37(2)Section 40ASection 43ASection 43B

40A (7) of the Income Tax Act? 4.Whether the ITAT was correct in law in allowing depreciation on assets in excess of 100% due to amalgamation despite provisions of 4th proviso to Section

STEEL CITY BEVERAGES LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-24(1), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee ispartly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3133/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh.M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Steel City Beverages Vs Ito Limited, C/O Advocate Ward- 24 (1) Kanika Jain D-80, Lgf New Delhi Panchsheel New Delhi - 1110017 Pan No.Aaccs3967M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 40Section 40ASection 47A(7)

40A of the Act amounting to Rs.57,83,824/-. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the addition/ adjustment made by the CPC / AO for an amount of Rs.11,18,470/- under Section 36 (1) (va). The brief facts of the case are that theassessee is a private 3. limited company incorporated under the companies

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-11, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No

ITA 6990/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 6990/Del/2017 (A.Y 2013-14)

Section 143(3)Section 144C

7 2.40 crores made from the parties who are related parties in terms of accounting standard 18 issued by the section 40A (2) of the income tax act. In the result ground No. 11 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed.” The purchase prices of components which are purchased from various suppliers are based upon negotiations with such vendors

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal No. 2424/Del/ 2015 filed by the revenue in assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed

ITA 1616/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

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

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

40a(ia) for alleged failure to deduct TDS u/s 194C of the Act amounting to Rs. 5063.08 crores, it can be seen that in the course of business of manufacturing two wheelers, the assessee places purchase orders on vendors of certain customized intermediary products like wheel assembly, seat assembly, etc. While placing the aforesaid purchase orders to the vendors

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S CORNELL OVERSEAS PRIVATE LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2395/DEL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2004-05 Dcit, Vs Cornell Overseas Private Ltd., Circle-3(1), B-235, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi,. Phase-I, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacc0034F Co No.217/Del/2011 (Ita No.2395/Del/2011) Assessment Year: 2004-05 Cornell Overseas Private Ltd., Vs Dcit, B-235, Okhla Industrial Area, . Circle-3(1), Phase-I, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacc0034F (Appellant/Cross Objector) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Vandana Bhandari, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Kumar Mishra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- 20, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2004-05. The Assessee Has Also Filed Co No.217/Del/2011 Cross Objections Against The Appeal Filed By The Revenue. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common

For Appellant: Ms Vandana Bhandari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kumar Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 28Section 80HSection 90C

7 CO No.217/Del/2011 agreement, the assessee is under obligation to prepare and submit to the associated enterprise designs for prior written approval in the form of products to be manufactured, sold or distributed which shall include approval of workmanship material, fabric and colours. The TPO noted that the design of the product manufactured is provided by the AE, the details

DAAWAT FOODS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA

ITA 4157/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) & Daawat Foods Ltd., Vs. Acit, Unit No.134, 1St Floor, Central Circle – 19, Rectangle I, New Delhi Saket District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110 017 Pan No. Aaccd 3698 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. Ms. Deepashree Rao, C.A. Shri Vibhu Gupta, C.A. Revenue By Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Cit-D.R Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/01/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 28.03.2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-Xxxiii, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09. Ita Nos.4157 & 4158/Del/2013 Daawat Foods Ltd Vs. Acit A.Y. 2007-08 & 2008-09 2 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under:

Section 132Section 142Section 143(1)Section 153A

Section 40A(3) 8. That, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the A.O. and subsequently CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that the assessee has made cash payments to various concern which are to be disallowed U/s 40A(3) of the Act. 9. That, in view

DAAWAT FOODS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA

ITA 4158/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) & Daawat Foods Ltd., Vs. Acit, Unit No.134, 1St Floor, Central Circle – 19, Rectangle I, New Delhi Saket District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110 017 Pan No. Aaccd 3698 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. Ms. Deepashree Rao, C.A. Shri Vibhu Gupta, C.A. Revenue By Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Cit-D.R Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/01/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 28.03.2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-Xxxiii, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09. Ita Nos.4157 & 4158/Del/2013 Daawat Foods Ltd Vs. Acit A.Y. 2007-08 & 2008-09 2 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under:

Section 132Section 142Section 143(1)Section 153A

Section 40A(3) 8. That, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the A.O. and subsequently CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that the assessee has made cash payments to various concern which are to be disallowed U/s 40A(3) of the Act. 9. That, in view

JINDAL STEEL POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, HISAR

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

ITA 3283/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. C.M. Garg & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 143(3)Section 263

40A(7) read with section 43B of the Act. Thus action u/s 263 revising an order of assessment is held to be in accordance with law. 46. Taking up third issue i.e. claim of additional deprecation of Rs. 5,91,106/- on computer software ‘Primavera’, the ld. CIT on examination of records, noticed that additional depreciation

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, HISAR

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

ITA 3128/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. C.M. Garg & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 143(3)Section 263

40A(7) read with section 43B of the Act. Thus action u/s 263 revising an order of assessment is held to be in accordance with law. 46. Taking up third issue i.e. claim of additional deprecation of Rs. 5,91,106/- on computer software ‘Primavera’, the ld. CIT on examination of records, noticed that additional depreciation

VENETIAN LDF PROJECTS LLP,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(1), GURGAON

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3533/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)

40A(2) of the Act had not application. 51. It is submitted that despite the appellant furnishing detailed explanations and supporting documents during the course of revisionary proceedings, the PCIT failed to consider or even refer to these submissions in the impugned order. The PCIT, without dealing with any of the detailed factual submissions or rendering any finding thereon, proceeded

AMAZON SMART COMMERCE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-1, DELHI

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3533/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2021-22
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)

40A(2) of the Act had not application.\n51. It is submitted that despite the appellant furnishing detailed explanations and supporting documents during the course of revisionary proceedings, the PCIT failed to consider or even refer to these submissions in the impugned order. The PCIT, without dealing with any of the detailed factual submissions or rendering any finding thereon, proceeded

ACIT, HISAR vs. JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD., HISAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

ITA 2230/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 80H

7 ors. 106. After considering the relevant finding given in the impugned orders, we find that the grounds given by the assessing officer for disallowance of interest are not tenable for the following reasons: 1. Jindal Holding Limited is not a related company in terms of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act; 2. The assessee had not divested interest