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.

8 results for “depreciation”+ Section 10Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi478Mumbai446Bangalore324Chennai178Kolkata126Pune42Ahmedabad40Hyderabad30Karnataka28Jaipur27Lucknow17Guwahati8Chandigarh8Surat7Agra5Cochin5Indore5Patna5Rajkot5Telangana5Nagpur3Calcutta3Cuttack2Raipur2Varanasi2Visakhapatnam2Dehradun2Orissa1Jodhpur1Panaji1SC1

Key Topics

Section 80I20Section 143(1)10Section 808Section 2506Deduction6Section 139(9)4Section 80A4Section 801E4Section 92C4Addition to Income

DEEPA JHUNJHUNWALA,SHILLONG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, SHILLONG, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 126/GTY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) and thereafter aggrieved the assessee has approached the ITAT with the following grounds:

Section 139(4)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80Section 80ASection 80I

Section 10B (8) is an exemption provision which cannot be compared with claiming an additional depreciation under section 32(1) (ii-a) of the Act. As per the settled

4
Transfer Pricing3
Exemption3

DEEPA JHUNJHUNWALA,SHILLONG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, SHILLONG, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 127/GTY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) and thereafter aggrieved the assessee has approached the ITAT with the following grounds:

Section 139(4)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80Section 80ASection 80I

Section 10B (8) is an exemption provision which cannot be compared with claiming an additional depreciation under section 32(1) (ii-a) of the Act. As per the settled

MAHESH CHACHAN,GUWAHATI vs. PR. CONMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, GUWAHATI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 25/GTY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati27 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2015-16 Mahesh Chachan Pr. Cit, Guwahati - 2 Kayal Market, Fancy Bazar, Vs. Guwahati-781001. Pan: Afxpc 3051 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Jay Prakash Gupta, Fca Respondent By : Shri N.T. Sherpa, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 03.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.04.2023 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – Guwahati-2, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’ Dated 30.08.2019 For Assessment Year 2015- 16 Against The Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Ito, Ward-4(2), Guwahati, Dated 05.04.2017. 2. Grounds Raised By The Assesee Is On Challenging The Treatment Of Vat Remission As Not Eligible For Deduction U/S 80Ie Of The Act By Invoking The Provisions Of Revision U/S 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Jay Prakash Gupta, FCAFor Respondent: Shri N.T. Sherpa, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

10B or section 10BA, in relation to the profits and gains of the undertaking. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no deduction shall be allowed to any undertaking under this section, where the total period of deduction inclusive of the period of deduction under this section, or under section 80-IC or under the second proviso to sub-section

PLASCOM INDUSTRIES LLP,KOLKATA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), GUWAHATI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 280/GTY/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati02 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: S.M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sanjay Jha, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 250Section 801ESection 801E(3)Section 801E(4)Section 801E(5)Section 801E(6)Section 80I

depreciation as claimed and allowed is Rs. 2,17,12,594/- Thus, fulfilment of conditions laid down u/s 80IE (3) of the income tax Act 1961 is proved form the facts on record As regard sec 80IE: (4) the provision is as under- "(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, in computing the total income

MRINAL DAS,BAKSA vs. ITO, WARD - BARPETA ROAD, BARPETA

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

ITA 255/GTY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati24 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 250Section 40A(3)Section 44ASection 69A

depreciation for each of the relevant assessment years. (4) Where an eligible assessee declares profit for any previous year in accordance with the provisions of this section and he declares profit for any of the five assessment years relevant to the previous year succeeding such previous year not in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1), he shall

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. GREENPLY INDUSTRIES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 140/GTY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati15 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrimanomohan Das, Jm Greenply Industries Ltd Acit, Circle-1 Madgul Lounge, 5 Th Floor, 23 Aaykar Bhawan, Milan Nagar, Chetiacental Road, Kolkata- Vs. Dibrugarh-786001, Assam 700027, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacg7284R Assessee By : Shri Ashok Tulsyan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Jha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Tulsyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jha, DR
Section 115J

10B & Rule10C of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (the Rules). 5. That whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in Law in allowing Excise duty exemption as capital receipt while the assessee has treated the same as revenue receipt in its book, return of income as well as during assessment. 6. That

GREENPLY INDUSTRIES LIMITED,TINSUKIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-TINSUKIA, TINSUKIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 232/GTY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati21 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Manish Borad

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 80ISection 92C

depreciation. The allowability of costs towards amortization of leasehold land is in question. Having heard the rival submissions on the issue, we find that the CIT(A) has rightly appreciated the facts lin perspective and concluding the issue in favour of assessee in the light of decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT

ACIT, CIRCLE - TINSUKIA , TINSUKIA vs. M/S. GREENPLY INDUSTRIES LTD., TINSUKIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 359/GTY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati21 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Manish Borad

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 80ISection 92C

depreciation. The allowability of costs towards amortization of leasehold land is in question. Having heard the rival submissions on the issue, we find that the CIT(A) has rightly appreciated the facts lin perspective and concluding the issue in favour of assessee in the light of decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT