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.

135 results for “depreciation”+ Section 144clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai813Delhi582Bangalore193Kolkata193Ahmedabad162Chennai157Jaipur135Hyderabad77Pune67Chandigarh57Amritsar56Raipur55Visakhapatnam46Cuttack40Indore36Cochin35Rajkot27Surat26Nagpur25Lucknow25Karnataka23Agra18Guwahati15Jodhpur11Patna10SC10Panaji7Telangana7Ranchi6Dehradun5Jabalpur4Calcutta3Varanasi2Punjab & Haryana2Allahabad1D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1

Key Topics

Addition to Income64Section 143(3)61Section 14850Section 14742Disallowance30Section 14425Section 234A23Section 143(2)23Depreciation23Section 145(3)

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

section 32(1)(iia) of the Act CIT Vs. Diamines & Chemicals Ltd. (2014) 109 DTR 62 (Guj.) (HC): The assessee already in the business of manufacture of chemicals, is eligible for additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) in respect of windmill electricity generating machinery acquired by it. JCIT vs. Mineral Enterprises Ltd. (2013) 144

Showing 1–20 of 135 · Page 1 of 7

22
Section 142(1)18
Business Income16

PRINCESS INFRA & DEVELOPMENT LLP,KOTA vs. ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicate hereinabove

ITA 859/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 144Section 153B(1)(b)Section 153CSection 56(2)(X)Section 68

144 of the Act. hence the aforesaid proviso of section 251(1)(a) of the Act is applicable in the instant case also. We are enclosing herewith an order passed by a CIT(Appeals), NFACfollowingthe similar provision It is therefore, most humbly requested to kindly set aside the assessment order dated 27.12.2019 and refer the case Back to assessing officer

PRINCESS INFRA & DEVELOPMENT LLP,KOTA vs. ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA , KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicate hereinabove

ITA 858/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 144Section 153B(1)(b)Section 153CSection 56(2)(X)Section 68

144 of the Act. hence the aforesaid proviso of section 251(1)(a) of the Act is applicable in the instant case also. We are enclosing herewith an order passed by a CIT(Appeals), NFACfollowingthe similar provision It is therefore, most humbly requested to kindly set aside the assessment order dated 27.12.2019 and refer the case Back to assessing officer

DEEP JYOTI COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 134/JPR/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Feb 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 44A

Depreciation 2186308 4892558 6975264 Interest Paid to Party 4207010 6108173 7767083 Remuneration paid to Partners 1500000 1800000 1800000 Total 24894003 25848141 43084570 5 Deep Jyoti Company, Jaipur. Less: FDR Interest & Other 2081275 5669942 8362256 Income Adjusted Profit 22812728 20178199 34722314 Total Turnover 307983890 258056977 434372451 Net profit furnished by A/R vide 7.99 7.40 7.81 letter dated

M/S KANAK VRINDAVAN RESORTS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 543/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 37

Depreciation 11,86,847/- 5,00,000/- Total 30,47,505/- 12,00,000/- In this regard it is submitted that it is settled provision of law that no disallowance can be made on estimate basis without rejecting the books of accounts u/s 145(3) of the Act. However, in the instant case ld. AO concluded the assessment by making

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. NAVRATAN VIDHA MANDIR SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the result appeal filed by the Department is dismissed and the C

ITA 201/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C.Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(5)Section 13(1)(d)Section 145(3)

Section 144. 9.3 Thus in the present case, it is seen that the books of account were not produced before the A.O along with the bills and vouchers for expenses. 28 ACIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-JAIPUR VS NAVRATAN VIDHA MANDIR SHIKSHA SAMITI Accordingly, the A.O was unable to verify the same. Hence there was reason for the A.O to exercise

SHRI BABOO LAL ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, ground no. 1 & 3 are dismissed, ground no

ITA 1370/JPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Feb 2020AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri G. M. Mehta (C.A.)For Respondent: Miss Chanchal Meena (JCIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 154Section 32Section 44A

depreciation has not been allowed by the AO and thus, the additional ground so raised by the assessee deserve to be dismissed. 11. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The question that arises for consideration is whether the Assessing officer was correct in invoking the provisions of section 144

SHRI DIGAMBER JAIN ATIKSHAYA KESHTRA,PADAMPUA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1, KAILASH HEIGHTS

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 424/JPR/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev sogani (C.A)&For Respondent: Ms. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 11(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 24Section 253(3)

144 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Notices under section 142(1) of the IT. Act, 1961 alongwith query letter were issued. In response thereto, Shri Narendra Kumar Goswami, Advocate and Authorized Representative of the society attended the proceeding from time to time and furnished the requisite details/submission. The case discussed with him." Hence, there is no merit in the same

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. JADAU JEWELLERS & MFG (P) LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 502/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal and Shri Gulshan Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, Addl.CIT - DR
Section 142Section 144Section 153A

Section 40(a)(ia) provides for certain disallowances in certain cases notwithstanding that those amounts are generally allowed under the general section. The computation u/s.29 has to be made u/s.145 on the basis of books of account regularly maintained by the assessee which the Assessing Officer did by estimating the profit at 5% of the sales. The learned Counsel

M/S. KAIZEN ORGANICS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 834/JPR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: The Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.K. Mahala (JCIT)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147

depreciation on Plant and Machinery of Rs. 8,04,524/-. The action of the ld. CIT (A) is illegal, unjustified 2 M/s. Kaizen Organics Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by quashing the said disallowance of Rs. 8,04,524/-. 3. The appellant craves its rights to add, amend or alter

RSD CONTAINERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1320/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Khandelwal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr.-DR
Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 151ASection 153CSection 68

144 r.w.s 144B of the Income 2 RSD Containers Pvt Ltd. vs ITO Tax Act, 1961 [ for short “Act”] which was passed by the Assessment Unit of Income Tax Department [ for short AO]. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - “1. That the whole proceedings u/s 147/148 are liable to be held as null and void

SUNRISE REALCONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED ,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-BHIWADI, BHIWADI

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1307/JPR/2024[2013-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 May 2025AY 2013-24

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194HSection 271(1)(b)Section 69

144, was also appropriate due to the lack of response from the assessee. The notices during assessment were sent to the appellant on email address ashishsogani.ca@gmail.com which is Last Used E-Mail ID by current user. This is the same address on which appeal notices are been sent along with CC to sunrisebhiwadi@gmail.com and the Sunrise Real Consultancy

KAILASH CHAND,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD, BEHROR, BEHROR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 565/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Dinesh Badgujar, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234A

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Ld. AO noted that the assessee has not furnished return of income in compliance of notice issued u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Ample opportunities were provided to the assessee, but no details/documents have been furnished till the date of completion of the assessment u/s. 144

SUNRISE REALCONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED ,BHIWADI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-BHIWADI, BHIWADI

ITA 1308/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 May 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194HSection 271(1)(b)Section 69

144, was also appropriate\ndue to the lack of response from the assessee. The notices during assessment\nwere sent to the appellant on email address ashishsogani.ca@gmail.com which is\nLast Used E-Mail ID by current user. This is the same address on which appeal\nnotices are been sent along with CC to sunrisebhiwadi@gmail.com and the\nappeal notices have been replied

M/S. MAHARAJA SHREE UMAID MILLS LTD. JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 783/JPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Feb 2020AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (CIT) &
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32

section 32 was inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2013 to include “or in the business of generation or generation and distribution of power”. Before the amendment inserted by the FA, 2012, additional depreciation was not admissible on any plant or machinery acquired or installed by an assessee engaged in the business of generation and distribution of power. Therefore, he confirmed the disallowance

SUBHASH PARETA,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the revenue are disposed off with above directions

ITA 434/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Oct 2017AY 2011-12
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.L.Chandel (Addl. CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 142Section 40A(3)Section 69Section 69C

Section 144, the Assessing Officer exercising his jurisdiction cannot act arbitrarily or capriciously. The assessment must proceed on judicial considerations in the light of relevant material that may be brought on record. The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Surjeetsingh Maheskumar (1994) 210 ITR 83 has held that in every case of best judgment

M/S CENTURY INFRA POWER P. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 169/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Oct 2019AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Bhanwar Singh (JCIT)
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 32(1)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

depreciation claimed by the assessee amounting to Rs. 8,42,792/- and therefore, as against the returned income of Rs. 3,89,66,220/-, the assessed income was determined at Rs 3,89,66,220/- by passing an order 3 M/s Century Infra Power P. Ltd., Jaipur Vs. DCIT, Jaipur u/s 143(3) read with section 144C

J.S.FOURWHEEL MOTORS (P) LTD ,ALWAR vs. ACIT. CIRCLE 1 ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 423/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik (CIT)
Section 144Section 24

144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, whereas the assessee company has submitted all the desired information, details and evidences through online mode, before framing of the assessment order and lying on the assessment record, which have partly been considered on pick and choose basis and additions so made are just on the presumption, assumption and surmises

DINESSH KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD4(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1393/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Shivangi Chopra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the\ncase may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to\n153 referred to as the relevant assessment year).\n\n5\n\nITA No. 1393/JPR/2024\nShri Dinesh Kumar Sharma, Jaipur.\n\n2.2 The expression 'believe" in section 147 requires an objective satisfaction based on definite\nmaterial

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BANGUR NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

ITA 1517/JPR/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dilip B. Desai, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 254Section 36(1)(va)Section 80Section 801A

sections (4) to (10) and as increased by the applicable surcharge, for the purposes of the Union, calculated in the manner provided therein, shall be further increased by an additional surcharge, for the purposes of the Union, to be called the “Health and Education Cess on income-tax”, calculated at the rate of four per cent of such income