Search: depreciation | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

546 results for “depreciation”+ Section 1clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai5,712 Delhi5,039 Chennai2,017 Bangalore1,872 Ahmedabad1,295 Kolkata1,266 Pune751 Hyderabad593 Jaipur546 Chandigarh395 Karnataka343 Cochin285 Surat240 Visakhapatnam229 Raipur223 Indore222 Cuttack196 Amritsar169 Rajkot116 Lucknow104 SC99 Nagpur85 Telangana82 Jodhpur80 Ranchi77 Guwahati70 Patna41 Agra38 Calcutta37 Panaji35 Kerala35 Dehradun33 Allahabad23 Jabalpur17 Punjab & Haryana15 Varanasi9 Orissa8 Rajasthan6 Gauhati2 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1 A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1 Himachal Pradesh1 S. B. SINHA MARKANDEY KATJU1 D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1 Tripura1 MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Addition to Income73 Section 143(3)67 Disallowance40 Depreciation35 Section 14733 Section 14829 Section 8029 Section 80I23 Deduction23 Section 154

ACIT, KOTA vs. MANGALAM CEMENT LTD., KOTA

ITA 82/JPR/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri H.V. Gurjar (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(i)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 43B

depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) and additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act during the course

Showing 1–20 of 546 · Page 1 of 28

...

19

OCEAN EXIM INDIA PRIVATE LTD,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 37/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Prabha Rana (Adv.)For Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(A)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to Section 43(b) on the other. If one goes by the legislative history of these provisions, what is discernible is that Parliament’s endeavour in introducing Section 43B [which opens with its non-obstante clause] was to primarily ensure that deductions otherwise permissible and hitherto claimed on mercantile basis, were expressly

SANJIV PRAKASHAN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

ITA 9/JPR/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2024AY 2020-2021

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

1) of the Central Processing of Returns Scheme, 2011 states that “Where a return is processed at the Centre, the appeal proceedings relating to the processing of the return shall lie with Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] having jurisdiction over the jurisdictional Assessing Officer” Thensitus of the CPC or the Assessing Office CPC is thus irrelevant

KATRATHAL GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED ,KATRATHAL vs. ITO WARD 1 SIKAR, SIKAR

ITA 1001/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv.\rFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT\r

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 151Section 234ASection 250

1)(b) read with Section 11(5)—Amount said to have received as\r\ndonation was added back to income of assessee under Section 69А—CIT(A)\r\naffirmed view taken by Assessing Officer except for granting partial relief such\r\nas with regard to claim for carry forward of depreciation

RAMESH CHAND BANSAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, AJMER

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 398/JPR/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena, JCIT - DR

Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 139Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

depreciation and the Assessing Officer did not honour the agreement. 3.1.2. After the coming of Sec. 271AAA applicability of Sec. 271(1)(c) has been completely ruled out by Sec. 271AAA(3). Moreover, the provisions of Sec. 271AAA starts with a non-obstante clause and overrides all other provisions of the Income Tax Act which essentially includes Sec. 271(1

RAWAT BAL VIDHA NIKETAN SAMITTEE,JAIPUR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

ITA 537/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Anoop Bhata CA &For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT

Section 11Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

section 13\n(1)(c)(ii) and 13(1)(d) and was thus not entitled to any benefits as provided u/s 11\nof the Act.\n7. It is noted that the nature of activities and transactions in the current year are\nsimilar to those in the immediately preceding year. As such, there is no case for\nallowing benefit of section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. VIPUL BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 292/JPR/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

1) of section 34 of the Act of 1922.\nThe language of clause (a) of section 147 read with sections 148 and 149 of the\nAct of 1961 as also the corresponding provisions of the Act of 1922 makes it plain\nthat two conditions have to be satisfied before the Income-tax Officer acquires\njurisdiction to issue notice under section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. PRIYA DEWAN, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 289/JPR/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

1) of section 34 of the Act of 1922.\nThe language of clause (a) of section 147 read with sections 148 and 149 of the\nAct of 1961 as also the corresponding provisions of the Act of 1922 makes it plain\nthat two conditions have to be satisfied before the Income-tax Officer acquires\njurisdiction to issue notice under section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SARITA DEWAN, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 299/JPR/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

1) of section 34 of the Act of 1922.\nThe language of clause (a) of section 147 read with sections 148 and 149 of the\nAct of 1961 as also the corresponding provisions of the Act of 1922 makes it plain\nthat two conditions have to be satisfied before the Income-tax Officer acquires\njurisdiction to issue notice under section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SARITA DEWAN, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 300/JPR/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

1) of section 34 of the Act of 1922.\nThe language of clause (a) of section 147 read with sections 148 and 149 of the\nAct of 1961 as also the corresponding provisions of the Act of 1922 makes it plain\nthat two conditions have to be satisfied before the Income-tax Officer acquires\njurisdiction to issue notice under section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR , JAIPUR vs. USHA BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 295/JPR/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

1) of section 34 of the Act of 1922.\nThe language of clause (a) of section 147 read with sections 148 and 149 of the\nAct of 1961 as also the corresponding provisions of the Act of 1922 makes it plain\nthat two conditions have to be satisfied before the Income-tax Officer acquires\njurisdiction to issue notice under section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. USHA BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 296/JPR/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

1) of section 34 of the Act of 1922.\nThe language of clause (a) of section 147 read with sections 148 and 149 of the\nAct of 1961 as also the corresponding provisions of the Act of 1922 makes it plain\nthat two conditions have to be satisfied before the Income-tax Officer acquires\njurisdiction to issue notice under section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SNEHLATA AGARWAL, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 298/JPR/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

1) of section 34 of the Act of 1922.\nThe language of clause (a) of section 147 read with sections 148 and 149 of the\nAct of 1961 as also the corresponding provisions of the Act of 1922 makes it plain\nthat two conditions have to be satisfied before the Income-tax Officer acquires\njurisdiction to issue notice under section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. TRILOK DEWAN, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 302/JPR/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

1) of section 34 of the Act of 1922.\nThe language of clause (a) of section 147 read with sections 148 and 149 of the\nAct of 1961 as also the corresponding provisions of the Act of 1922 makes it plain\nthat two conditions have to be satisfied before the Income-tax Officer acquires\njurisdiction to issue notice under section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. PRIYA DEWAN, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 288/JPR/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

1) of section 34 of the Act of 1922.\nThe language of clause (a) of section 147 read with sections 148 and 149 of the\nAct of 1961 as also the corresponding provisions of the Act of 1922 makes it plain\nthat two conditions have to be satisfied before the Income-tax Officer acquires\njurisdiction to issue notice under section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUBHASH CHANDRA BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 293/JPR/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

1) of section 34 of the Act of 1922.\nThe language of clause (a) of section 147 read with sections 148 and 149 of the\nAct of 1961 as also the corresponding provisions of the Act of 1922 makes it plain\nthat two conditions have to be satisfied before the Income-tax Officer acquires\njurisdiction to issue notice under section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. ANIMESH AGARWAL, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 290/JPR/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Jun 2025

1) of section 34 of the Act of 1922.\nThe language of clause (a) of section 147 read with sections 148 and 149 of the\nAct of 1961 as also the corresponding provisions of the Act of 1922 makes it plain\nthat two conditions have to be satisfied before the Income-tax Officer acquires\njurisdiction to issue notice under section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SNEHLATA AGARWAL, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 297/JPR/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

1) of section 34 of the Act of 1922.\nThe language of clause (a) of section 147 read with sections 148 and 149 of the\nAct of 1961 as also the corresponding provisions of the Act of 1922 makes it plain\nthat two conditions have to be satisfied before the Income-tax Officer acquires\njurisdiction to issue notice under section

SM WORKFORCE PRIVATE LIMITED,BHIWADI vs. ITO, WARD, BHIWADI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 426/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143Section 154Section 2Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

1) of the Central Processing of Returns Scheme, 2011 states that “Where a return is processed at the Centre, the appeal proceedings relating to the processing of the return shall lie with Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] having jurisdiction over the jurisdictional Assessing Officer” Thensitus of the CPC or the Assessing Office CPC is thus irrelevant

KANHAIYALAL RAMESHWAR DAS,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

ITA 1454/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Rajnikant Bhatra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR (Thru: V.C)

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 154Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

section\n271(1)(c) of the Act.\n8.\nWe have heard both the parties and perused the materials available\non record. Vide Ground no 1 & 2 the assessee challenges the levy of\npenalty of Rs.4,04,481/-. The brief facts related to the levy of this penalty is\nthat the assessee there was an action of search and seizure action