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.

21 results for “depreciation”+ Section 44Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai21Delhi21Chennai9Dehradun3Patna2SC1Jodhpur1Lucknow1Bangalore1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)31Section 153A28Disallowance18Addition to Income16Natural Justice14Section 15411Section 271B6Section 80J5Depreciation4Section 142(1)

TATA NYK SHIPPING PTE. LTD. ,SINGAPORE vs. CIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-3, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1067/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Tata Nyk Shipping Pte. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltd., International Taxation-3, 6, Shenton Way, #18-08B, New Delhi Oue Downtown 2, Singapore Pan :Aadct9945P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 263Section 92C

depreciation being the owner of the asset after execution of sale and lease back arrangement. In this process, the tax liability is reduced under the domestic laws of both countries. He observed, since benefits similar to Article 8 of India–Singapore DTAA is not available either under India–Netherlands DTAA or India–Japan DTAA and shipping income is also differently

GREEN INFRA WIND FARM ASSET LTD.,GURUGRAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 10(2), NEW DELHI

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

Showing 1–20 of 21 · Page 1 of 2

3
Section 1432
Section 115J2
ITA 930/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Green Infra Wind Farm Asset Ltd., Vs Acit, 5Th Floor, Tower C, Building No.8, Circle-10(2), Dlf Cyber City, Gurugram, New Delhi. Haryana-122002. Pan-Aaecg4080H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ca & Shri Biren Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 23.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.07.2025 Order

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250

depreciation is nil; or (iv)to (vi) [***] (vii)the amount of profits of sick industrial company for the assessment year commencing on and from the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the said company has become a sick industrial company under sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions

DELFIN FINANCE P.LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-7(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 1997-98 is allowed

ITA 2958/DEL/2019[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

depreciation as per companies act Rs.48,57,778 and disclosed under income head by reducing the lease rental. Lease adjustment account of Rs.45,02,952/- has been adjusted under the fixed assets schedule. Hon'ble supreme court in case of Virtual soft systems Limited CIVIL APPEAL NO 4358 OF 2018 held that: The method of amounting followed, as derived from

DELFIN FINANCE P.LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-7(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 1997-98 is allowed

ITA 2957/DEL/2019[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

depreciation as per companies act Rs.48,57,778 and disclosed under income head by reducing the lease rental. Lease adjustment account of Rs.45,02,952/- has been adjusted under the fixed assets schedule. Hon'ble supreme court in case of Virtual soft systems Limited CIVIL APPEAL NO 4358 OF 2018 held that: The method of amounting followed, as derived from

JUBILANT FOODWORKS LIMITED,NOIDA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for the statistical purposes

ITA 184/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2022-23 Jubilant Food Works Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Limited Plot No. 1A Sector Income Tax, Circle – 5 (1) 16 A Gautam Buddha Nagar (1), Noida Uttar Pradesh 201301 Pan No. Aabcd 1821 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. K M Gupta, Advocate Ms. Shruti Khimata, Ca Respondent By Sh. Jitender Singh, Cit Dr

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 80Section 80ASection 80J

depreciation. In these circumstances, in the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shivanand Electronics [1994] 209 ITR 63 (Bom), we see no merit in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs." 2. We concur with the aforesaid view of the High Court and hold

DCIT, GURGAON vs. SH. CHANCHAL SINGH DHEK, GURGAON

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

ITA 5945/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaand. Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2005-06 Dcit Vs. Sh. Chanchal Singh Dhek Circle -1 (1) Prop. M/S. Great Roadways Gurgaon Anaj Mandi Chowk, Gurgaon Pan No. Aaopd6087G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 154Section 194C(3)Section 40Section 44B

depreciation on motor car and Rs.354/- on account of disallowance u/s. 44B. Subsequently the AO found that assessee has debited lorry hire charges to the extent of Rs.1,66,43,122/-on which no TDS was deducted by the assessee. He, therefore, issued a notice u/s. 154 of the IT Act. Since there was no compliance from the side

ODEON BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 19(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 286/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Odeon Builders Private Vs. Acit Limited Circle – 19 (1) M-116, 2Nd Floor, Connaught Delhi Place, Central, Delhi-110001 Pan No.Aaaco0155H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Suresh Gupta, Ca Respondent By Sh.M. G. Joseph Gangte, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 21/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 11/06/2024 Order Per Sudhir Kumar, Jm:

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 271Section 271BSection 44Section 44A

depreciation loss of Rs.5,52,08,552/-to carry forward. The AO has directed the assessee company to file the Tax Audit Report u/s 44 AB of the Act in Form No. 3CB and 3CD but he has failed to file the audit report u/s. 44AB of the Act on the stipulated date of filing the audit report, after that

KRBL LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 07, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 1200/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

44B, 51 and 53). Thus, it has been confirmed by the Samiti that the Form 6R filled in by the appellant is not the only evidence to prove that the sellers were farmers but there are various other records required to be maintained by the samiti mandatorily which prove that the sales were made by the farmers. 50. The assessing

KRBL LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 07, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 1201/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

44B, 51 and 53). Thus, it has been confirmed by the Samiti that the Form 6R filled in by the appellant is not the only evidence to prove that the sellers were farmers but there are various other records required to be maintained by the samiti mandatorily which prove that the sales were made by the farmers. 50. The assessing

KRBL LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 07, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 1202/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

44B, 51 and 53). Thus, it has been confirmed by the Samiti that the Form 6R filled in by the appellant is not the only evidence to prove that the sellers were farmers but there are various other records required to be maintained by the samiti mandatorily which prove that the sales were made by the farmers. 50. The assessing

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI vs. KRBL LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 1338/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

44B, 51 and 53). Thus, it has been confirmed by the Samiti that the Form 6R filled in by the appellant is not the only evidence to prove that the sellers were farmers but there are various other records required to be maintained by the samiti mandatorily which prove that the sales were made by the farmers. 50. The assessing

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI vs. KRBL LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 1339/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

44B, 51 and 53). Thus, it has been confirmed by the Samiti that the Form 6R filled in by the appellant is not the only evidence to prove that the sellers were farmers but there are various other records required to be maintained by the samiti mandatorily which prove that the sales were made by the farmers. 50. The assessing

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI vs. KRBL LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 1340/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

44B, 51 and 53). Thus, it has been confirmed by the Samiti that the Form 6R filled in by the appellant is not the only evidence to prove that the sellers were farmers but there are various other records required to be maintained by the samiti mandatorily which prove that the sales were made by the farmers. 50. The assessing

KRBL LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 07, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 1199/DEL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

44B, 51 and 53). Thus, it has been confirmed by the Samiti that the Form 6R filled in by the appellant is not the only evidence to prove that the sellers were farmers but there are various other records required to be maintained by the samiti mandatorily which prove that the sales were made by the farmers. 50. The assessing

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI vs. KRBL LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 1342/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

44B, 51 and 53). Thus, it has been confirmed by the Samiti that the Form 6R filled in by the appellant is not the only evidence to prove that the sellers were farmers but there are various other records required to be maintained by the samiti mandatorily which prove that the sales were made by the farmers. 50. The assessing

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI vs. KRBL LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 1343/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

44B, 51 and 53). Thus, it has been confirmed by the Samiti that the Form 6R filled in by the appellant is not the only evidence to prove that the sellers were farmers but there are various other records required to be maintained by the samiti mandatorily which prove that the sales were made by the farmers. 50. The assessing

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI vs. KRBL LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 1344/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

44B, 51 and 53). Thus, it has been confirmed by the Samiti that the Form 6R filled in by the appellant is not the only evidence to prove that the sellers were farmers but there are various other records required to be maintained by the samiti mandatorily which prove that the sales were made by the farmers. 50. The assessing

KRBL LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 07, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 1198/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

44B, 51 and 53). Thus, it has been confirmed by the Samiti that the Form 6R filled in by the appellant is not the only evidence to prove that the sellers were farmers but there are various other records required to be maintained by the samiti mandatorily which prove that the sales were made by the farmers. 50. The assessing

KRBL LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 07, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 1197/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

44B, 51 and 53). Thus, it has been confirmed by the Samiti that the Form 6R filled in by the appellant is not the only evidence to prove that the sellers were farmers but there are various other records required to be maintained by the samiti mandatorily which prove that the sales were made by the farmers. 50. The assessing

KRBL LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 07, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 1196/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

44B, 51 and 53). Thus, it has been confirmed by the Samiti that the Form 6R filled in by the appellant is not the only evidence to prove that the sellers were farmers but there are various other records required to be maintained by the samiti mandatorily which prove that the sales were made by the farmers. 50. The assessing