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.

155 results for “depreciation”+ Section 43Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai242Delhi155Raipur105Chennai73Bangalore48Jaipur48Ahmedabad37Visakhapatnam28Kolkata23Hyderabad21Lucknow14Surat14Amritsar11Pune11Indore10Nagpur7Chandigarh4SC4Cochin3Jodhpur2Cuttack2Panaji2Rajkot1Patna1Agra1Guwahati1

Key Topics

Addition to Income73Section 143(3)71Disallowance69Section 14A58Section 43B43Depreciation43Deduction41Section 4029Section 14722Section 80

B4S SOLUTION P.LTD,GHAZIABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2187/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali
Section 10(34)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)Section 3Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

depreciation). Each of these deductions, has its contours, depending upon the expressions used, and the conditions that are to be met. It is therefore necessary to bear in mind that specific enumeration of deductions, dependent upon fulfillment of particular conditions, would qualify as allowable deductions: failure by the assessee to comply with those conditions, would render the claim vulnerable

Showing 1–20 of 155 · Page 1 of 8

...
21
Section 80I21
Section 143(1)18

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 4081/DEL/2010[2003-04]Status: PendingITAT Delhi12 Mar 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR

depreciation could be used to set off against any head of income except salary. 56. The claim was denied by the Assessing Officer placing reliance on pre-amended provision of section 32 of the Act. 57. We are of the considered view that the Assessing Officer should consider the set off as per the amended provisions

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1507/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-16(1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv., Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri G.C.Srivastava, Adv., Shri Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv. & Shri Mayank Patawari, Ca Date Of Hearing 11.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 43Section 43B

section 43B. thereby resulting in a double disallowance to the extent of Rs. 1,39,45,180/-. 7.4. Without prejudice, the assessing officer erred in granting the alternative deduction of depreciation

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 961/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-16(1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv., Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri G.C.Srivastava, Adv., Shri Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv. & Shri Mayank Patawari, Ca Date Of Hearing 11.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 43Section 43B

section 43B. thereby resulting in a double disallowance to the extent of Rs. 1,39,45,180/-. 7.4. Without prejudice, the assessing officer erred in granting the alternative deduction of depreciation

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4969/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

depreciation. The same is deleted. 54. In addition to the issues considered in A.Y 2006-07 ITA No. 4411/DEL/2018, in this year the assessee has challenged the disallowance of unpaid interest of Rs. 1,71,04,300/-. 55. The underlying facts in the issue are that the assessee issued deep discount bonds to the public on which interest was payable

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4971/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

depreciation. The same is deleted. 54. In addition to the issues considered in A.Y 2006-07 ITA No. 4411/DEL/2018, in this year the assessee has challenged the disallowance of unpaid interest of Rs. 1,71,04,300/-. 55. The underlying facts in the issue are that the assessee issued deep discount bonds to the public on which interest was payable

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4972/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

depreciation. The same is deleted. 54. In addition to the issues considered in A.Y 2006-07 ITA No. 4411/DEL/2018, in this year the assessee has challenged the disallowance of unpaid interest of Rs. 1,71,04,300/-. 55. The underlying facts in the issue are that the assessee issued deep discount bonds to the public on which interest was payable

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4968/DEL/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

depreciation. The same is deleted. 54. In addition to the issues considered in A.Y 2006-07 ITA No. 4411/DEL/2018, in this year the assessee has challenged the disallowance of unpaid interest of Rs. 1,71,04,300/-. 55. The underlying facts in the issue are that the assessee issued deep discount bonds to the public on which interest was payable

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4973/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

depreciation. The same is deleted. 54. In addition to the issues considered in A.Y 2006-07 ITA No. 4411/DEL/2018, in this year the assessee has challenged the disallowance of unpaid interest of Rs. 1,71,04,300/-. 55. The underlying facts in the issue are that the assessee issued deep discount bonds to the public on which interest was payable

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4970/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

depreciation. The same is deleted. 54. In addition to the issues considered in A.Y 2006-07 ITA No. 4411/DEL/2018, in this year the assessee has challenged the disallowance of unpaid interest of Rs. 1,71,04,300/-. 55. The underlying facts in the issue are that the assessee issued deep discount bonds to the public on which interest was payable

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. ARCOTECH LTD (FORMERLY SKS LTD.)

The appeal is disposed of

ITA/71/2013HC Delhi12 Sept 2013
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 43B

Section 43B of the Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed depreciation claim of Rs.89,95,173/- and claim on account of loss

M/S DALMIA CEMENT (BHARAT) LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA/374/2003HC Delhi23 Dec 2015
For Appellant: Mr Simran MehtaFor Respondent: Mr N.P. Sahni, Senior Standing Counsel for
Section 115Section 116Section 260ASection 32A(1)

43B of the Act came into force only with effect from 1st April, 1989. The question whether the Assessee can claim a deduction on account of a statutory levy even though the same is disputed by the Assessee, is also no longer res integra. It is now well settled that the Assessee would be entitled to claim deduction on account

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. GUJARAT GUARDIAN LIMITED

In the result, no fault can

ITA/669/2008HC Delhi23 Jan 2009

Bench: The Tribunal The Revenue As Well As The Assessee, Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of 2009:Dhc:240-Db

For Appellant: Ms. Prem Lata BansalFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita Jha
Section 260ASection 37(1)Section 40A(2)

depreciation on actual cost of assets after they were adjusted for fluctuation in the rate of exchange, in terms of Section 43A of the Act. A bare perusal of paragraph 36 of the impugned judgment would show that the Tribunal as a matter of fact rejected the application of the assessee raising the additional ground for the reason that

ACIT CIRCLE-26(2), NEW DELHI vs. VIHAAN NETWORKS PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4064/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2011-12 Acit,Circle-26(2) Vs. Vihaan Networks Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi. A-60, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-01, New Delhi – 110 028 Pan Aaccr2460C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ritesh Bajaj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Harpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 43B

section 43B (Rs. 5,56,022/-); disallowance of depreciation on Plants & Machinery (Rs. 88,26,090/-) disallowance under section 14A (Rs. 58,84,990/-) and disallowance

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. THE FERTILIZER CORPORATION OF INDIA, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for A

ITA 3356/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Sarita Kumari, CIT, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)

section 43B of the Act. We are in agreement with the observations of the ld. CIT(A) that there is no scope to intend something more or less than what is written in the plain language of the statute. Neither anything extra can be read into it which is not there in the statute, nor anything less can be read

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. THE FERTILIZER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for A

ITA 5468/DEL/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Sarita Kumari, CIT, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)

section 43B of the Act. We are in agreement with the observations of the ld. CIT(A) that there is no scope to intend something more or less than what is written in the plain language of the statute. Neither anything extra can be read into it which is not there in the statute, nor anything less can be read

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. THE FERTILIZER CORPORATION OF INDIA, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for A

ITA 3355/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Sarita Kumari, CIT, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)

section 43B of the Act. We are in agreement with the observations of the ld. CIT(A) that there is no scope to intend something more or less than what is written in the plain language of the statute. Neither anything extra can be read into it which is not there in the statute, nor anything less can be read

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. THE FERTILIZER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for A

ITA 5467/DEL/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Sarita Kumari, CIT, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)

section 43B of the Act. We are in agreement with the observations of the ld. CIT(A) that there is no scope to intend something more or less than what is written in the plain language of the statute. Neither anything extra can be read into it which is not there in the statute, nor anything less can be read

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. THE FERTILIZER CORPORATION OF INDIA, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for A

ITA 3357/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Sarita Kumari, CIT, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)

section 43B of the Act. We are in agreement with the observations of the ld. CIT(A) that there is no scope to intend something more or less than what is written in the plain language of the statute. Neither anything extra can be read into it which is not there in the statute, nor anything less can be read

M/S THE ORIENTAL INSSURANCE CO.LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 200/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharmam/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, Vs. The Dcit, A 25/27, Asaf Ali Road, Ltu, New Delhi New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaact0627R

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 115Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 28Section 44

depreciation allowance claim for AY 2011-12 were on record. 4. That on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in upholding a disallowance of Rs. 2,94,82,474/- being provision made for standard assets. 5. That on facts and in law the CIT(A) / AO erred in computing income of the Appellant under section 115JB