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.

46 results for “depreciation”+ Short Term Capital Gainsclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,491Delhi959Chennai380Bangalore343Kolkata252Ahmedabad183Jaipur128Hyderabad89Chandigarh86Karnataka55Raipur53Pune50Indore46Cochin31SC24Visakhapatnam24Surat23Lucknow20Rajkot18Kerala11Nagpur11Panaji8Guwahati8Cuttack6Calcutta6Jodhpur5Telangana5Amritsar3Dehradun3Ranchi2Rajasthan2Punjab & Haryana2Allahabad1Agra1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1Jabalpur1Patna1Gauhati1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)32Addition to Income30Section 80I24Depreciation24Section 194H20Disallowance19Section 6818Section 12A16Section 32A16Section 201(1)

DARSHAN KUMAR PAHWA,INDORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE5(1), INDORE

ITA 987/IND/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

short the ‘Act’) dated 14.12.2016, Shivnarayan Sharma & Ors ITA Nos. 889/Ind/2018,474,206,60,987/Ind/2019 06.12.2016, 17.12.2018 and 21.12.2018 framed by ITO-4(2), Indore. 2. Assessee(s) has raised following grounds of appeal:- Shivnarayan Sharma ITA No.889/Ind/2018 A.Y 2014-15 That the order passed by learned CIT(A) is bad in law and on facts. The learned

SAPAN SHAH,INDORE vs. ACIT-4(I), INDORE

ITA 474/IND/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jun 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

Showing 1–20 of 46 · Page 1 of 3

14
Section 194J14
Deduction14
Section 143(3)
Section 68
Section 69C

short the ‘Act’) dated 14.12.2016, Shivnarayan Sharma & Ors ITA Nos. 889/Ind/2018,474,206,60,987/Ind/2019 06.12.2016, 17.12.2018 and 21.12.2018 framed by ITO-4(2), Indore. 2. Assessee(s) has raised following grounds of appeal:- Shivnarayan Sharma ITA No.889/Ind/2018 A.Y 2014-15 That the order passed by learned CIT(A) is bad in law and on facts. The learned

MANISH GOVIND AGRAWAL HUF,INDORE vs. I T O 2(1), INDORE

ITA 61/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

short the ‘Act’) dated 14.12.2016, Shivnarayan Sharma & Ors ITA Nos. 889/Ind/2018,474,206,60,987/Ind/2019 06.12.2016, 17.12.2018 and 21.12.2018 framed by ITO-4(2), Indore. 2. Assessee(s) has raised following grounds of appeal:- Shivnarayan Sharma ITA No.889/Ind/2018 A.Y 2014-15 That the order passed by learned CIT(A) is bad in law and on facts. The learned

PRAYANK JAIN,INDORE vs. ACIT5(1), INDORE

ITA 206/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

short the ‘Act’) dated 14.12.2016, Shivnarayan Sharma & Ors ITA Nos. 889/Ind/2018,474,206,60,987/Ind/2019 06.12.2016, 17.12.2018 and 21.12.2018 framed by ITO-4(2), Indore. 2. Assessee(s) has raised following grounds of appeal:- Shivnarayan Sharma ITA No.889/Ind/2018 A.Y 2014-15 That the order passed by learned CIT(A) is bad in law and on facts. The learned

GOVIND HARINARAYAN AGRAWAL HUF,INDORE vs. I T O 2(1), INDORE

ITA 60/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

short the ‘Act’) dated 14.12.2016, Shivnarayan Sharma & Ors ITA Nos. 889/Ind/2018,474,206,60,987/Ind/2019 06.12.2016, 17.12.2018 and 21.12.2018 framed by ITO-4(2), Indore. 2. Assessee(s) has raised following grounds of appeal:- Shivnarayan Sharma ITA No.889/Ind/2018 A.Y 2014-15 That the order passed by learned CIT(A) is bad in law and on facts. The learned

SHIV NARAYAN SHARMA,INDORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(1), INDORE

ITA 889/IND/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

short the ‘Act’) dated 14.12.2016, Shivnarayan Sharma & Ors ITA Nos. 889/Ind/2018,474,206,60,987/Ind/2019 06.12.2016, 17.12.2018 and 21.12.2018 framed by ITO-4(2), Indore. 2. Assessee(s) has raised following grounds of appeal:- Shivnarayan Sharma ITA No.889/Ind/2018 A.Y 2014-15 That the order passed by learned CIT(A) is bad in law and on facts. The learned

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. CHUGH REALTY, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

ITA 238/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

short term capital gain of Rs.1,20,21,991/- on deemed sales consideration of Rs.6,55,18,000/- u/s 50C which works out to 18.34%. Further, the assessee and co-owner have not claimed any other administrations expenses, financial expenses or depreciation

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI MOHANLAL CHUGH, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

ITA 239/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

short term capital gain of Rs.1,20,21,991/- on deemed sales consideration of Rs.6,55,18,000/- u/s 50C which works out to 18.34%. Further, the assessee and co-owner have not claimed any other administrations expenses, financial expenses or depreciation

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI NITESH CHUGH, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

ITA 122/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

short term capital gain of Rs.1,20,21,991/- on deemed sales consideration of Rs.6,55,18,000/- u/s 50C which works out to 18.34%. Further, the assessee and co-owner have not claimed any other administrations expenses, financial expenses or depreciation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 3(1), INDORE vs. SHRI RAJEEV AJMERA, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 51/IND/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms.Suchitra Kamble & Shrib.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit-3(1) Shri Rajeev Ajmera, Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Abgpa4930L Co No.23/Ind/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.51/Ind/2018) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Rajeev Ajmera, Dcit-3(1) Indore Indore बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Abgpa4930L Assessee By Shri Mahendra Mittal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31.08.2022 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 44A

short-term capital gain and computed taxable income on the basis of section 50C. When the Ld. AO confronted the assessee in this regard, the assessee made following submission: “The assessee is in property broker ship business since long and he also doing purchase/sale of immovable properties. The assessee has done similar type of transaction during the assessment year

M/S. SHREE VIGNESH WAREHOUSE AND DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE DY CIT CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 5/IND/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Vighnesh Warehouse Dcit, Cpc & Distributors Private Bangaluru बनाम/ Limited Vs. (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue)

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234BSection 32Section 50

depreciation and capital gain as per section 50 read with section 32 of Income-tax Act, 1961 is given, according to which the cost of the block of asset comprising of the impugned building was Rs. 58,03,857/- against the sale price of Rs. 71,00,000/- and the resultant short-term

JAYA JUNEJA,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(4), INDORE

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

ITA 813/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kamal Garg, CA & Shri Aayush Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148A

short “NFAC”), Delhi vide order dated 17.09.2024 passed for A.Y. 2015-16. 2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in passing the ex-parte order without giving proper and effective opportunity of being heard to the appellant inasmuch none of the notices claimed

SRK DEV BUILD PVT LTD.,INDORE vs. DCIT/ACIT 5(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

ITA 471/IND/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2016-17 Srk Dev Build Pvt. Ltd, Dcit/Acit-5(1) 18/2, Lasudia Mori, Indore बनाम/ A.B. Road, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaqcs3387P Assessee By Shri Pranay Goyal & S.N. Goyal, Cas Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.06.2024

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 32Section 32(1)Section 37Section 37(1)Section 40

short term capital gains in shares with each script, period of holding etc. The transactions were through electronics system and assessee is also having a Demat account with margin penal. The contention of the assessee was that shares were purchased as an investment and also accounted for in the books of investment, but the same were treated as stock

DCIT 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S MAA UMIYA AGRITECH PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 89/IND/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanidcit 1(1) M/S. Maa Umiya Agritech Pvt. Ltd. Indore 119, A.B. Road, Aloo Pyaj Mandi, Vs. Indore (Appellant / (Revenue) (Assessee) Pan: Aabcn8230F Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Date Of Hearing 11.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 08.06.2023

Section 12ASection 138Section 144Section 145

short term capital gain 45,00,000/- (as discussed in para 8) Total assess Income 5,38,80,006/- 11. The AO rejected the claim of loss only on the ground that nobody has responded to the notice issued however, the return of income as well as audit report was very much available with the AO as recorded

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

short amount of undisclosed turnover to the tune of Rs.10,16,075/- . He has contended that the issue of applicability of G.P. rate was not subject matter of appeal and consequently not subject matter of settlement under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. He has pointed out that in respect of the second issue regarding cash loan shown by the assessee, Page

THE DCIT-3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. M.P. ENTERTAINMENT & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., INDORE

ITA 344/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Arpit GaurFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT-DR
Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23Section 28

depreciation at Rs. 1,55,95,905/-. In the P&L account of the assessee total receipts showed at Rs.67,06,781/- consisting of rental receipts of Rs.7,95,526/- common area maintenance of Rs. 32,53,311/-, HVAC charges of Rs.13,04,535/- and interest income of Rs.13,53,409/-. After deducting expenses of Rs.2,48,22,382/-, book

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3 (1), INDORE vs. M/S M.P. ENTERTAINMENT AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, INDORE

ITA 203/IND/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Arpit GaurFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT-DR
Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23Section 28

depreciation at Rs. 1,55,95,905/-. In the P&L account of the assessee total receipts showed at Rs.67,06,781/- consisting of rental receipts of Rs.7,95,526/- common area maintenance of Rs. 32,53,311/-, HVAC charges of Rs.13,04,535/- and interest income of Rs.13,53,409/-. After deducting expenses of Rs.2,48,22,382/-, book

THE DCIT-3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. M.P. ENTERTAINMENT & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., INDORE

ITA 118/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Arpit GaurFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT-DR
Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23Section 28

depreciation at Rs. 1,55,95,905/-. In the P&L account of the assessee total receipts showed at Rs.67,06,781/- consisting of rental receipts of Rs.7,95,526/- common area maintenance of Rs. 32,53,311/-, HVAC charges of Rs.13,04,535/- and interest income of Rs.13,53,409/-. After deducting expenses of Rs.2,48,22,382/-, book

THE DCIT-3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. M.P. ENTERTAINMENT & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., INDORE

ITA 117/IND/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Arpit GaurFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT-DR
Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23Section 28

depreciation at Rs. 1,55,95,905/-. In the P&L account of the assessee total receipts showed at Rs.67,06,781/- consisting of rental receipts of Rs.7,95,526/- common area maintenance of Rs. 32,53,311/-, HVAC charges of Rs.13,04,535/- and interest income of Rs.13,53,409/-. After deducting expenses of Rs.2,48,22,382/-, book

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE vs. COMMANDER INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and CO of assessee are dismissed

ITA 24/IND/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Oct 2024AY 2020-21
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 32(1)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)(c)Section 47

term 'goodwill' has not been defined in the Act. Gainful reference can be taken from the decision Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B.C. Srinivasa Setty [1981] 128 ITR 294/5 Taxman 1 (SC) to understand what goodwill is.\nIn CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty (supra), the Supreme Court:-\n\"Goodwill denotes the benefit arising from connection