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.

11 results for “depreciation”+ Section 194Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai149Delhi104Kolkata61Bangalore60Ahmedabad51Chennai50Cochin29Raipur26Hyderabad23Visakhapatnam17Indore15Amritsar14Jaipur11Cuttack10Rajkot8Pune8Nagpur7Kerala5Lucknow4Jodhpur3Patna3Chandigarh3Surat3Ranchi2Dehradun2Rajasthan1Karnataka1Guwahati1

Key Topics

Section 35A25Section 43B11Section 13210Section 69C10Section 13910Section 153A10Addition to Income10Disallowance10Section 145(3)8Section 40

INDER KUMAR GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 4-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 528/JPR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jul 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Roy (DCIT)
Section 144Section 145(3)Section 40Section 40aSection 68

Section 194C of the Act are not attracted. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I delete the addition confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, ground No. 4 and 4.1 of the appeal is allowed. 12. Ground No. 5 of the appeal is against sustaining the lump sum disallowances of Rs. 5,00,000/- made out of various

5
Deduction5
Depreciation3

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ANAMIKA CONDUCTORS LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 612/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Oct 2017AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri G.M. Mehta (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)
Section 14ASection 201(1)Section 36(1)Section 40Section 43B

depreciation admissible to the assessee. In our opinion, the Tribunal has rightly allowed the appeal. Finding no illegality therein, we are unable to cause interference in the order passed by the Tribunal.” 5. In light of above, respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Mehru Electricals & Mechanical Engg. (P) Ltd. (Supra

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BEAWAR vs. SHRI MAN MOHAN MITTAL, BEAWAR

In the result, the cross objection so raised by the assessee is rejected

ITA 764/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2019AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Vinod Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 40A(3)

194C(6). The appellant has declared net profit at Rs. 5,61,398/-. The appellant relying on the decision of Co-ordinate bench of ITAT, Jaipur in the case of Rakesh Construction vs. ACIT and other decisions of ITAT Jaipur Bench has contended that once the net profit is estimated by rejecting bank results u/s 145(3) then no separate

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, ALWAR vs. SHRI SUBHASH CHAND GUPTA, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and the C

ITA 559/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Aug 2018AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri J. S. Kulhari (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 40

194C of the IT Act 1961.” Grounds of assessee’s C.O.: “1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) has erred confirming the addition of Rs. 1,19,763/- on account of packing labour expenses and packing material expenses. 2. That under the facts and circumstances of the case the learned

KIRAN INFRA ENGINEERS LTD.,JAIPUR vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 494/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: or at the time of hearing of

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal (C.A)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 194C

194C of the I.T. Act, was also deducted thereon by IRCON International. When assessee was asked to show cause, vide notice dated 19.12.2018 about the differences between contract receipts shown in audited final accounts and contract receipts reflecting in form 26AS. On perusal of reply filed by the assessee on this issue in 6 Kiran Infra Engineers Ltd. vs. ACIT

AKSHAY INFRASYS INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-4(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 613/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Aug 2024AY 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 Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter “Act”) by the ITO, Ward-4(1), Jaipur. 2 Akshay Infrasys Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 2.1 At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 10 days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR submitted that though the order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KSHEER SAGAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1159/JPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh (CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 35ASection 43BSection 69C

depreciation on such capital expenditure at prescribed rates and same may kindly be allowed to it.” 19. We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The ld. CIT(A) has dealt with the issue in para No. 17 & 18 of his order and the same is reproduced below: “17. I have

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KSHEER SAGAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1160/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh (CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 35ASection 43BSection 69C

depreciation on such capital expenditure at prescribed rates and same may kindly be allowed to it.” 19. We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The ld. CIT(A) has dealt with the issue in para No. 17 & 18 of his order and the same is reproduced below: “17. I have

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KSHEER SAGAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1161/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh (CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 35ASection 43BSection 69C

depreciation on such capital expenditure at prescribed rates and same may kindly be allowed to it.” 19. We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The ld. CIT(A) has dealt with the issue in para No. 17 & 18 of his order and the same is reproduced below: “17. I have

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KSHEER SAGAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1162/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh (CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 35ASection 43BSection 69C

depreciation on such capital expenditure at prescribed rates and same may kindly be allowed to it.” 19. We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The ld. CIT(A) has dealt with the issue in para No. 17 & 18 of his order and the same is reproduced below: “17. I have

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KSHEER SAGAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1158/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh (CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 35ASection 43BSection 69C

depreciation on such capital expenditure at prescribed rates and same may kindly be allowed to it.” 19. We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The ld. CIT(A) has dealt with the issue in para No. 17 & 18 of his order and the same is reproduced below: “17. I have