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.

11 results for “depreciation”+ Section 394clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi375Mumbai358Bangalore122Chennai102Ahmedabad70Kolkata54Jaipur38Raipur30Pune22Hyderabad20Chandigarh14Visakhapatnam11Indore11Surat7SC5Lucknow4Ranchi4Cuttack4Calcutta4Jodhpur4Karnataka3Rajkot2Cochin2Telangana2Guwahati2Orissa1Nagpur1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)15Section 26310Section 14A8Section 271(1)(c)8Addition to Income8Section 36(1)(vii)6Disallowance5Section 36(1)(viia)4Section 23

SHREEPAL HUMAD,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT-1, INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 125/IND/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishreepal Humad Pr. Cit-1 Near Civil Hospital, Bus Indore Vs. Stand Road, Manasa Madhya Pradesh (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaxph1346 K Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 13.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21 .06.2023

Section 12ASection 138Section 263

394 as well as judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Killick Nixon Ltd. vs. DCIT 125 taxmann 1055 (SC) and submitted that where the assessee has settled its case under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the provision of section 263 cannot be invoked for revising the assessment order. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that

M/S. MADHYA PRADESH CRICKET ASSOCIATION,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed and consequently the order of the Ld

Depreciation3
Section 144C(13)2
Revision u/s 2632
ITA 782/IND/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Jun 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaassessment Year: 2012-13 Madhya Pradesh Cricket Dcit, 1(1), Association Indore बनाम/ Holkar Stadium, Vs. 7, Race Course Road, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aaatg3527C Appellant By Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Shri Arpit Gaur (Ar) Revenue By Shri Lal Chand (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 21.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.06.2017

Section 13Section 2Section 2(15)

394, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that registration u/s 12AA does not necessarily entitle the assessee to get its income excluded from the income of the previous year for the purpose of determination of tax liability. As a matter fact it only entitles the assessee to claim such exemptions which otherwise could not be claimed in the absence

M/S. BRIDGESTONE INDIA PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. THE ACIT NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 84/IND/2022[2017-18/]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Jul 2023

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanibridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. Acit (Nfac) Plot No.A-43, Phase-Ii, Delhi Midc Chakan, Village Vs. Sawardari, Taluka Khed, Pune (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcb 2304 E Assessee By Shri Sukhsagar Syal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 23.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 43(1)

depreciation. Accordingly, both grounds of appeal are allowed. 8. To maintain the rule of consistency we follow the earlier order of this Tribunal and decide this issue in favour of the assessee so far as the subsidy received by the assesse under Maharashtra Industrial Promotion Scheme. 9. Ground no.2 is regarding the addition made

SMT. SHWETA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. THE PR. CIT-2, INDORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 280/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2014-15

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263

depreciation on the build-operate-transfer arrangement in conformity with the circular, but the Assessing Officer had failed to do so and that therefore the order vas erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. That did not constitute the reasons required to be given by the Principal Commissioner to justify the exercise of jurisdiction under section 263. Only after undertaking

M/S. NARMADA MALWA GRAMIN BANK,INDORE vs. THE ACIT-3(1), INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 95/IND/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore03 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year : 2008-09 Acit- 3(1) M/S. Narmada Malwa Gramin Indore Bank, बनाम/ 201, Arcade Silver, 56 Shops, New Vs. Palasia, Indore (M.P.) (Revenue ) (Respondent) P.A. No. Aaccn2847F Assessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

depreciation. 5. Aggrieved now both the assessee and Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal. Narmada Malwa First we take up Revenues appeal In ITANO. 81/Ind/2016 The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT(A) was justified in Law in directing to delete the Penalty levied

THE ACIT-3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. NARMADA MALWA GRAMIN BANK, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 81/IND/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore03 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year : 2008-09 Acit- 3(1) M/S. Narmada Malwa Gramin Indore Bank, बनाम/ 201, Arcade Silver, 56 Shops, New Vs. Palasia, Indore (M.P.) (Revenue ) (Respondent) P.A. No. Aaccn2847F Assessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

depreciation. 5. Aggrieved now both the assessee and Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal. Narmada Malwa First we take up Revenues appeal In ITANO. 81/Ind/2016 The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT(A) was justified in Law in directing to delete the Penalty levied

THE DCIT, 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. MODERN LABORATORIES, INDORE

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

ITA 277/IND/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Jul 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ ./ ./ I.T.A. No.277 & Co.16/Ind/2014 ./ "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-09

394 (Bombay), CIT v. Varinder Rawley [2014] 366 ITR 232 (P&H), CIT v. Kinetic Capital Finance Ltd. [2013] 354 ITR 296 (Del), ACIT v. Pravin Mittal [2016] 28 ITJ 473 (Trib-Indore), CIT v. Metachem Industries [2000] 245 ITR 160 (MP):161 CTR DCIT v 1(1) v Modern Laboratories / I. T. A. No. 277/Ind/2014& CO.No.16/Ind/2014/AY

THE ACIT-CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI YOGESH KUMAR HOTWANI, MANDSAUR

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

ITA 674/IND/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Jan 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

394,597 92,017,993 188,291,006 307,639,671 239,997,166 per audited accounts for each year N.P. Ratio as - - 0.24% 0.48% 0.25% 0.35% 0.37% per Tax Audit Report for each year Return on - - 2.57% 2.97% 2.03% 3.00% 4.33% investment (RoI) Ratio based on Tax Audit Report Investment

SHRI YOGESH HOTWANI,MANDSAUR vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE

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

ITA 680/IND/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Jan 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

394,597 92,017,993 188,291,006 307,639,671 239,997,166 per audited accounts for each year N.P. Ratio as - - 0.24% 0.48% 0.25% 0.35% 0.37% per Tax Audit Report for each year Return on - - 2.57% 2.97% 2.03% 3.00% 4.33% investment (RoI) Ratio based on Tax Audit Report Investment

ACIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. SOM DISTILLERIES AND BREWERIES LTD., BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 297/IND/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniay: 2013-14 Som Distilleries & Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ Breweries Limited, 1(1), Vs. Som House, Bhopal. 23, Zone Ii, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Aabcs3374B) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Ay:2014-15 Acit (Central)-1, Som Distilleries & बनाम/ Bhopal Breweries Limited, Vs. Som House, 23, Zone Ii, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Aabcs3374B) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234A

section 250(2)(b) of the Act and in response to his notice, the AO failed to submit any report. Further, in absence of any specific request from the AO, the CIT(A) presumed that the AO did not want to attend the hearings. Thus, when the case involved hefty additions and the AO considered his additions on sound footing

SOM DISTILLERIES AND BREWERIES LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 271/IND/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniay: 2013-14 Som Distilleries & Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ Breweries Limited, 1(1), Vs. Som House, Bhopal. 23, Zone Ii, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Aabcs3374B) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Ay:2014-15 Acit (Central)-1, Som Distilleries & बनाम/ Bhopal Breweries Limited, Vs. Som House, 23, Zone Ii, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Aabcs3374B) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234A

section 250(2)(b) of the Act and in response to his notice, the AO failed to submit any report. Further, in absence of any specific request from the AO, the CIT(A) presumed that the AO did not want to attend the hearings. Thus, when the case involved hefty additions and the AO considered his additions on sound footing