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.

3 results for “depreciation”+ Block Assessmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,585Delhi1,192Chennai566Bangalore525Kolkata389Ahmedabad213Hyderabad120Raipur104Karnataka77Jaipur74Chandigarh68Pune60Amritsar47Indore30Surat25Visakhapatnam24Guwahati23SC22Cuttack21Lucknow18Nagpur17Rajkot15Cochin13Telangana12Ranchi6Dehradun5Allahabad3Panaji3Jabalpur3Calcutta2Jodhpur2Kerala2Patna1Punjab & Haryana1Orissa1Rajasthan1D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1

Key Topics

Section 1547Section 40A(3)3Addition to Income3Depreciation2Disallowance2

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), JABALPUR vs. ANAND MINING CORPORATION, JABALPUR

In the result, the Cross Objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 104/JAB/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur24 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40A(3)

depreciation claimed on it of Rs.15,38,092/-. The detail of machine i.e. date of purchase I.T.A. No.104/Jab/2018 C.O.No.03/Jab/2018 6 Assessment Year:2014-15 and date of put to use is as under (as per chart provided in audited report): Description of Sl.No. Date of Date of put Amount (Rs.) block

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) , JABALPUR vs. M/S. JABALPUR HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTER, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 19/JAB/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Vs. Jabalpur Hospital & Central Circle, Researchcentre,Pvtltd Ramnath Russel Crossing, Building,Napier Town, Napier Town, Jabalpur-482001, Jabalpur-482001 Madhya Pradesh. Madhya Pradesh Pan/Gir No. : Aabcj1959K Appellant .. Respondent Co.No.04/Jab/2019 (A.Y. 2016-17) (In Ita No.19/Jab/2019) Jabalpur Hospital & Vs. Dcit, Research Centre Pvt Ltd, Central Circle, Russel Crossing, Ramnath Napier Town, Building,Napier Town, Jabalpur-482001. Jabalpur-482001. Madhya Pradesh. Madhya Pradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcj1959K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj Ghai.CA.ARFor Respondent: Shri Saad Kidwai. CIT-DR
Section 142(1)

block period April 1, 1988, to March 128, 1999. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals)The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal and acted the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs. 23 lakhs The venue file appeal to the Tribunal The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and confirmed the order

ASHWANI KUMAR SEHGAL,KATNI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KATNI

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

ITA 46/JAB/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur21 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleashwani Kumar Sehgal Vs. Ito-1. M/S. Sehgal Industries, Katni-483501, Madhav Nagar Gate, Madhyapradesh. Katni-483501, Madhyapradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Ajgps0132E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Sapanusrethe, Advocate.Ar Respondentby : Shri.Shivkumar. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.09.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi /Cit(A) A Passed U/Sec 154 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri.SapanUsrethe, Advocate.ARFor Respondent: Shri.ShivKumar. Sr. DR
Section 154

assessment proceeding as order passed under section 154 by the AO as the issue raised in proceeding under section 154 is debatable issue and cannot be adjudicated in proceeding under section 154. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.89,108 on account of depreciation claimed by the appellant