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.

2 results for “depreciation”+ Section 56clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,837Delhi1,643Bangalore683Ahmedabad451Chennai438Kolkata335Hyderabad222Jaipur198Chandigarh184Pune150Indore106Cochin85Raipur75Visakhapatnam65Amritsar64Surat63Lucknow49Karnataka45Ranchi44Cuttack42Rajkot40Guwahati34Jodhpur27SC24Nagpur24Agra13Allahabad11Telangana9Calcutta9Dehradun8Panaji7Kerala6Varanasi5Patna4Jabalpur2Rajasthan1Orissa1Gauhati1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)2Section 2632Addition to Income2

RAJEEV MISHRA,SEONI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, SEONI, SEONI

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

ITA 152/JAB/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sapan Usrethe, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

section 271(1)(c). The ld. AO also observed that the assessee, who is a property developer had shown a sum of Rs.1,04,56,475/- towards land development. The assessee was asked to submit the details of the land which had been developed and he submitted the same. However, he was unable to submit vouchers on the basis

M/S.ANUJ KUMAR AGRAWAL,BATUL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , BATUL

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 126/JAB/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur10 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year:2010-11 M/S. Anuj Kumar Agarwal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, College Road, Betulganj, Aaykarbhawan, Civil Lines, Betul (Mp) 460001 Betul (M.P.) Pan: Aaofa3419K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 263

section 263 order, i.e., to enhancing the income as originally assessed by Rs.5,69,330, even as held by the ld. CIT(A). We, however, do not think so; the revision clearly requiring a fresh consideration of the stated issues as per law after hearing the assessee. The use of the words ‘do novo