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 56(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,837Delhi1,643Bangalore683Ahmedabad451Chennai438Kolkata335Hyderabad222Jaipur199Chandigarh181Pune150Indore106Cochin85Raipur75Visakhapatnam65Amritsar64Surat63Lucknow49Karnataka45Ranchi44Cuttack42Rajkot40Guwahati34Jodhpur27SC24Nagpur24Agra13Allahabad11Telangana9Calcutta9Dehradun8Panaji7Kerala6Varanasi5Patna4Jabalpur2Rajasthan1Orissa1Gauhati1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)2Section 2632Addition to Income2

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

2 Rs.18,27,177, and allowing deduction toward interest and salary to the partners thereafter, at Rs.2,49,557/- and Rs.1,30,000/- respectively, i.e., as claimed through the profit and loss account (PB pgs. 12,25), assessed its’ income for the year at Rs.1,4,47,620 vide order u/s. 143(3) dated 25.3.2013 (copy on record). The same

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

2 A.Y. 2011-12 Rajeev Mishra engaged an Advocate at Jabalpur to handle the case. The assessee had not been kept informed regarding the status of the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and it was when he received a notice of penalty proceedings from Jabalpur unit that he contacted his C.A. and sent the notices to him. However