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.

12 results for “depreciation”+ Section 9(1)(i)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,908Delhi4,488Bangalore1,709Chennai1,661Ahmedabad1,145Kolkata1,058Pune690Hyderabad542Jaipur458Chandigarh357Cochin240Raipur220Surat218Visakhapatnam218Indore206Karnataka204Cuttack181Amritsar160Rajkot98SC84Lucknow83Nagpur74Ranchi71Jodhpur68Guwahati67Telangana61Agra37Dehradun33Panaji32Kerala25Patna22Allahabad21Calcutta15Jabalpur12Varanasi9Punjab & Haryana7Orissa6Rajasthan6Gauhati2Tripura1D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)16Addition to Income12Depreciation9Disallowance9Section 2638Section 1547Section 142(1)6Section 80I6Section 1485Section 147

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHHINDWARA vs. M/S. CENTRAL MADHYA PRADESH GRAMIN BANK, CHHINDWARA

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 135/JAB/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur10 Dec 2020AY 2012-13
Section 147Section 43Section 43(1)

section, unless the context otherwise requires- (1) “actual cost” means the actual cost of the assets to the assessee, reduced by that portion of the cost thereof, if any, as has been met directly or indirectly by any other person or authority: Provided…. Provided further… Explanation 1 – 9 … Explanation 10.- Where a portion of the cost of an asset acquired

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 Jabalpur
5
Deduction5
Section 271(1)(b)4
24 Nov 2023
AY 2014-15

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

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

9. The learned Assessing Officer on perusal of Audit Report submitted by the assessee, found that the assessee had claimed the depreciation amounting to Rs.1,81,13,439/- in Schedule No. 4 of profit & loss account. The addition made on fixed asset was annexed with Audited Report as chart "Addition Details (From Point No. 18)", there was an addition

SMT. LALITA BAI KHANDELWAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 207/JAB/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur03 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2007-08 Smt. Lalita Bai Khandelwal V. Income Tax Officer Mangalwara Chouraha Ward 1 Babai, Hoshangabad

For Appellant: Shri L. L. Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougale, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147

1. ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das, 103 ITR 437. 2. C.I.T. vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. [2011] 311 ITR 236. 3. ITO vs. Shri Khajanchand Chhabra in ITA No.164/JAB/2006, passed on 2/8/2006. 3. The ld. D.R., on the other hand, has placed strong reliance on the impugned order. 4. A reading of the reasons recorded by the A.O. for forming

VIJAY OIL MILLS CO. ,DAMOH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, DAMOH

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

ITA 112/JAB/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur16 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalevijay Oil Mills Co, Vs. Ito 1(1), Maganj Ward No. 4, Damoh Damoh-470661, Madhya Pradesh. Madhya Pradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Aacfv8920C Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri.Dhiraj Ghai. Fca.Ar Respondentby : Shri.Rajesh Kumar.Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.10.2023 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) Passed U/Sec 143(1) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri.Dhiraj Ghai. FCA.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Rajesh Kumar.Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 24

section 24(a) be allowed as expenses /deduction and correct rental income be derived at. 3. Without prejudice to ground 1 and 2 above, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in not in not allowing collection and allied expenses of Rs. 41,383/- as claimed in computation of income as to be deduction from business income. Hence

SANJAY RATHI,CHHINDWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, CHHINDWARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 212/JAB/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur14 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad""./ Ita No. 212/Jab/2015 "" " " " " " "  / Assessment Year : 2010-11   Sanjay Rathi, Income Tax Officer, Prop. Of M/S. Rathi Industries, Vs Chindwara-1, Sausar, Chhindwara (Mp) Chindwara (Mp) Pan : Acppr 7820 Q / (Appellant) / (Respondent)         Assessee By : Shri G.N. Purohit, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Shri. P.D. Chougule, Dr $ %&'/Date Of Hearing : 12/03/2018 ! "# $ %&' /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/03/2018 ()*+ "# .//O R D E R , - Per Manish Borad:- This Appeal Of Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2010-11 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-I, Jabalpur Dated 11.08.2015 Vide Appeal No.J/Cit/A/I/Ito/W.1/Cwa/039/13-14, Arising Out Of Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Dated 11.03.2013 Framed By The Ito-1, Chhindwara.

For Appellant: Shri G.N. Purohit, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri. P.D. Chougule, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

1. That the Learned CIT(A) as well as AO has erred in law and on facts of the case in making addition of Rs.27,00,000/- on account of following cash credit:- (i) Kamal Kishore Kothari – Rs.9,00,000/- (ii) Bhavesh Popat - Rs.9,00,000/- (iii) Tulsiram Baisate - Rs.9,00,000/- 2. That the Learned

M/S BINDRA WAREHOUSING CORPORATION vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1),

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 153/JAB/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Bleassessment Year : 2008-09 Bindra Warehousing Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-1(1), Corporation, Itarsi

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 80Section 80I

depreciation and imposing the tax on the same which is neither correct nor justified therefore same is liable to be deleted. However, prior to arguing the same, the ld. Counsel for the assessee, Shri Mishra, would plead for admission of legal Grounds (Gds. 3 & 4), reading as under, also praying for their adjudication first inasmuch as the acceptance thereof, where

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)

9/-For the above reason it is submitted that the inventory of X-ray Envelop is incorrect and Rs9,10,942/- cannot be treated as unexplained. () Explanation about remaining items individually valued at less than Rs. 1 lakh:-The assessee has given explanation in (a) to (i) above in respect of items which were costing more than Rs Regarding remaining

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

9. The appellant craves for leave to amend, add to or omit any ground up to the time of hearing of the appeal.” 2. It is observed that the appeal is late by one year and eight months. A condonation petition and affidavit was filed by the assessee. It was submitted that the appeal against the assessment order had been

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2(1), JABALPUR vs. M/S. MAHAKAUSHAL SUGAR & POWER INDUSTRIES LTD., NARSINGHPUR

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

ITA 44/JAB/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur29 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Bardia, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 69Section 80

section 288; (ii) "arm's length price'' means a price which is applied or proposed to be applied in a transaction between persons other than associated enterprises, in uncontrolled conditions; 6 | P a g e Asst. CIT vs. Mahakaushal Sugar & Power Industries Ltd. The same clearly adverts to the ‘market price’ of the goods and services being captively consumed. ‘Market

SHRI DIGPAL JAISWAL,KATNI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JABALPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 83/JAB/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. K P Dewani, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Shravan Kumar Gotru, CIT-DR
Section 1Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 271(1)(b)Section 40

Depreciation granted @ 30% on Dumpers which is excessive as Dumper is not a motor lorry. 6. The ld. PCIT has observed that non-application of mind for proper examination of case has rendered the order erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 7. In the case of assessee, regular assessment has been made

SHRI DIGPAL JAISWAL,KATNI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1 , KATNI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 42/JAB/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. K P Dewani, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Shravan Kumar Gotru, CIT-DR
Section 1Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 271(1)(b)Section 40

Depreciation granted @ 30% on Dumpers which is excessive as Dumper is not a motor lorry. 6. The ld. PCIT has observed that non-application of mind for proper examination of case has rendered the order erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 7. In the case of assessee, regular assessment has been made

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

1. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) was not justified in not quashing the assessment proceeding as order passed under section 154 by the AO is not the mistake apparent from the record. Ashwani Kumar Sehgal, Jabalpur. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) was not justified in not quashing the assessment proceeding as order passed under section