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.

26 results for “depreciation”+ Section 69Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi26Jaipur12Bangalore12Mumbai11Pune5Kolkata5Ahmedabad3Hyderabad3Surat2Amritsar2Rajkot2Indore2Chandigarh2Jodhpur1Kerala1Cochin1

Key Topics

Section 14336Section 6836Addition to Income25Section 153A24Section 115B20Search & Seizure15Section 13912Set Off of Losses9Section 41(1)8Section 69

ACE INFRACITY DEVELOPERS P.LTD,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, NOIDA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1087/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 115BSection 132Section 2Section 69

depreciation requires to be confirmed and relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A). 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The submission made by the Ld. AR related to CBDT Circular No. 11/2019 dated 19/06/2019 are very much relevant in the present appeal before us. Before that Section

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 29(1), NEW DELHI vs. SAHIL JAIN, NEW DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed

Showing 1–20 of 26 · Page 1 of 2

7
Section 1326
Undisclosed Income6
ITA 1452/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed
ITAT Delhi
12 Nov 2025
AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Sh. Sahil Jain, Income Tax Officer, Ward-29(1), 117, Engineering Enclave, New Delhi Pitampura, New Delhi Pan: Afspj1105L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 80J

69D, the provisions of section 115BBE are not attracted in this case That without prejudice to the above and in the alternative, even otherwise, the learned Assessing Officer has erred both in law and on facts in holding that amount deposited in the bank by the appellant is taxable as income under section 68 of the Act and thereafter computed

OBEROI MOTORS,AMBALA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KARNAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3513/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P.Kantassessment Year : 2013-14 Oberoi Motors, Vs Acit, C/O-Rajiv Goel & Central Circle, Karnal. Associates, 179, Bank Road, Ambala Cantt., Haryana Pan-Aaafq5401H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh.Rohit Goel, Ca Respondent By Ms. Pramita M.Biswas, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 14.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 25.08.2021

Section 133ASection 68

depreciation of current year under section 32(2) fall in Section 71 and not under section 72, as such, allowable as ‘business expenditure’. Therefore, findings of the A.O. is not correct that surrendered income cannot be assessed even under the Head “Income from other sources”. It may also be noted here that after insertion of Section 115BBE, any income assessed

ARUN ENTERPRISES,GHAZIABAD vs. PR,CIT, GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 1096/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 14Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 163Section 263

depreciation. 1. You have raised unsecured loans during the year as per point no- 31(a) of your Tax Audit report. In respect of each unsecured loan raised furnish the following 1. 1. Confirmation as well as ITR and bank statement (for FY 2016-17) of the loan providers. 2. Copy of account of these loan providers in your books

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD vs. HPS CONCRETE, DELHI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1326/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarasstt. Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Central Vs. M/S. Hps Concrete Private Circle, Ghaziabad Limited D-988, New Friends Colony, Delhi – 110 065 Pan Aadch0928C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 115BSection 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 41(1)Section 68

depreciation claimed by the assessee without considering the fact that the assessee surrendered the amount of Rs. 4,42,00,000/- against bogus sundry creditors which was added to the total income of the 2 assessee u/s 68 of the I.T. Act r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act treating the same as undisclosed income as the assessee was unable to explain

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD vs. HPS CONCRETE PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1325/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarasstt. Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Central Vs. M/S. Hps Concrete Private Circle, Ghaziabad Limited D-988, New Friends Colony, Delhi – 110 065 Pan Aadch0928C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 115BSection 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 41(1)Section 68

depreciation claimed by the assessee without considering the fact that the assessee surrendered the amount of Rs. 1,80,00,000/- against bogus sundry creditors which was added to the total income of the 2 assessee u/s 68 of the I.T. Act r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act treating the same as undisclosed income as the assessee was unable to explain

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1), FARIDABAD vs. PRAHLAD, PALWAL

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed as above

ITA 42/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 145(3)Section 146(3)Section 40Section 40A(3)

depreciation on above capital expenditure of Rs.5,05,460/- is being granted to the assessee @ 5% as the car was purchased in the month of February, 2020. With respect to non-GST purchases of Rs. 3,70,29,969/- for purchasing items like sand, mud, stone, crush, small stones etc., the assessee has submitted copies of bank statements reflecting payments

ACIT, HARIDWAR vs. M/S SANT STEEL & ALLOYS (P) LTD., KOTDWAR

In the result, appeals filed by Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2809/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 71

69D of the Act , which are to be aggregated with the income computed under the chapter IV and chapter V of the Act . These deemed incomes are where the source of income is not explained by the assessee or the explanations offered is in the opinion of Assessing Officer is not satisfactory as against the source of income known

ACIT, HARIDWAR vs. M/S SANT STEEL & ALLOYS (P) LTD., KOTDWAR

In the result, appeals filed by Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2808/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jun 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 71

69D of the Act , which are to be aggregated with the income computed under the chapter IV and chapter V of the Act . These deemed incomes are where the source of income is not explained by the assessee or the explanations offered is in the opinion of Assessing Officer is not satisfactory as against the source of income known

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAJESTIC PROPERTIES (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5231/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 5231/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2005-06 Ita No. 5392/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2006-07 Ita No. 5579/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2007-08 Acit, Vs. M/S Majestic Properties (P) Ltd., Central Circle-2, 1/18B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm7158E Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Shivani Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.10.2022

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Shivani Singh, CIT DR
Section 132

69D and therefore, it is clear that these figures have been considered as assessee’s income under the substantive provision of IT Act. Under the substantive provision of IT Act, it is now settled law that every receipt is not necessarily or cannot necessarily be income in the hands of the recipient and therefore, the question whether any particular

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

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5392/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 5231/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2005-06 Ita No. 5392/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2006-07 Ita No. 5579/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2007-08 Acit, Vs. M/S Majestic Properties (P) Ltd., Central Circle-2, 1/18B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm7158E Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Shivani Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.10.2022

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Shivani Singh, CIT DR
Section 132

69D and therefore, it is clear that these figures have been considered as assessee’s income under the substantive provision of IT Act. Under the substantive provision of IT Act, it is now settled law that every receipt is not necessarily or cannot necessarily be income in the hands of the recipient and therefore, the question whether any particular

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

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5579/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 5231/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2005-06 Ita No. 5392/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2006-07 Ita No. 5579/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2007-08 Acit, Vs. M/S Majestic Properties (P) Ltd., Central Circle-2, 1/18B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm7158E Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Shivani Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.10.2022

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Shivani Singh, CIT DR
Section 132

69D and therefore, it is clear that these figures have been considered as assessee’s income under the substantive provision of IT Act. Under the substantive provision of IT Act, it is now settled law that every receipt is not necessarily or cannot necessarily be income in the hands of the recipient and therefore, the question whether any particular

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE , GHAZIABAD vs. ARIHANT TEXTILES, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2257/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 115BSection 127Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 15B

depreciation of Rs. 29.80 lacs which were fully verifiable and were allowable as per provisions of the Act. The appellant explained that the fall in gross profit during the year under consideration was on account of unforeseen circumstances which resulted in the net loss and hence the loss shown by the appellant should be accepted. From the facts

GREATWALL MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 4158/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Chaudhary, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 148Section 153CSection 68

depreciation to be allowed. 9. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A). 10. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. We find that prior to the insertion of section 115BBE w.e.f. AY 2013-14, the deemed income

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 28 , NEW DELHI vs. AGSON GLOBAL PVT. LTD., DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

ITA 5268/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goyal, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143Section 153A

section 132(4) of the Act of Sri Sampat Shrama is incriminating material found during the course of search. We have observed that said statement of Sh. Sampat Sharma was recorded at his residential premises during search proceeding carried out separately. In our opinion, the statement of Sh. Sampat Sharma was not recorded in search proceeding of the assessee

AGSON GLOBAL PVT. LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT CC-28, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

ITA 3742/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goyal, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143Section 153A

section 132(4) of the Act of Sri Sampat Shrama is incriminating material found during the course of search. We have observed that said statement of Sh. Sampat Sharma was recorded at his residential premises during search proceeding carried out separately. In our opinion, the statement of Sh. Sampat Sharma was not recorded in search proceeding of the assessee

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 28 , NEW DELHI vs. AGSON GLOBAL PVT. LTD., DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

ITA 5269/DEL/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goyal, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143Section 153A

section 132(4) of the Act of Sri Sampat Shrama is incriminating material found during the course of search. We have observed that said statement of Sh. Sampat Sharma was recorded at his residential premises during search proceeding carried out separately. In our opinion, the statement of Sh. Sampat Sharma was not recorded in search proceeding of the assessee

AGSON GLOBAL PVT. LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

ITA 3743/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goyal, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143Section 153A

section 132(4) of the Act of Sri Sampat Shrama is incriminating material found during the course of search. We have observed that said statement of Sh. Sampat Sharma was recorded at his residential premises during search proceeding carried out separately. In our opinion, the statement of Sh. Sampat Sharma was not recorded in search proceeding of the assessee

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 28 , NEW DELHI vs. AGSON GLOBAL PVT. LTD., DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

ITA 5264/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goyal, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143Section 153A

section 132(4) of the Act of Sri Sampat Shrama is incriminating material found during the course of search. We have observed that said statement of Sh. Sampat Sharma was recorded at his residential premises during search proceeding carried out separately. In our opinion, the statement of Sh. Sampat Sharma was not recorded in search proceeding of the assessee

AGSON GLOBAL PVT. LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT CC-28, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

ITA 3744/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goyal, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143Section 153A

section 132(4) of the Act of Sri Sampat Shrama is incriminating material found during the course of search. We have observed that said statement of Sh. Sampat Sharma was recorded at his residential premises during search proceeding carried out separately. In our opinion, the statement of Sh. Sampat Sharma was not recorded in search proceeding of the assessee