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.

38 results for “depreciation”+ Section 234Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi739Mumbai611Bangalore404Ahmedabad92Kolkata75Chennai70Jaipur38Hyderabad27Lucknow16Chandigarh16Indore16Ranchi14Pune12Surat9Dehradun9Amritsar8Karnataka6Nagpur5Visakhapatnam4SC4Agra3Cochin3Rajkot2Patna2Allahabad2Telangana2Jodhpur1Panaji1Punjab & Haryana1Raipur1Calcutta1Cuttack1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)31Deduction23Addition to Income21Section 234A18Exemption16Disallowance16Section 14814Section 25014Section 15411Depreciation

SUPREME BUILDESTATES PVT LTD,MADANGANJ- KISHANGARH vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2 AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 495/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) a
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 2Section 234BSection 37Section 80Section 80G

Showing 1–20 of 38 · Page 1 of 2

11
Section 37(1)10
Section 1478

234B & 234C of the Act.” 3. The fact as culled out from the records is that the assessee company is a closely held company, having interest income from funds available to the company, which is being assessed under the 3 Supreme Buildestates Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT head ‘income from other sources’. The assessee company has filed its return of income

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the\r\ncase may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in\r\nsections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year).\"\r\n27. It is established principle of interpretation of statutes, that the Parliament is\r\npresumed to be not extravagant, in using the words

SCHOLAR'S EDUCATION TRUST OF INDIA,602-A, TRIMURTY DAVE APARTMENT, JAI SINGH HIGHWAY MARG, BANI PARK, JAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

ITA 129/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: The Cit(A), The Power Exercised By Him U/S 263 For Disallowing The Donation Paid To Other Society Would Not Fall In The Ambit Of Section 263. 3. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Finding Given By Ld. Cit That Once Exemption U/S 11 Is Withdrawn, Not Disallowing The Scholar’S Education Trust Of India Vs. Cit(E)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Manoj Mehar (CIT) a
Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 244ASection 263

section 263. 3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the finding given by Ld. CIT that once exemption u/s 11 is withdrawn, not disallowing the Scholar’S Education Trust of India vs. CIT(E) donation of Rs. 1,83,60,000/- in computing the total income has made the assessment order passed by AO as erroneous & prejudicial

RENU KHUNTETA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD3(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 220/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. H. M. Singhvi (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 801ASection 80I

234B and 234C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as per rules." 6. Ground No. 1 and 3 of the appeal is that the order u/s. 154 is bad in law and on facts as the adjusted total income being debatable. 6.1 The appellant contended that the order passed u/s 154 is totally bad in law and illegal since

SHRI VIKRAM SINGH SHEKHAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 484/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jan 2020AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Gupta, JCIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 154Section 234A

depreciation—Mistake that is proposed to be rectified is dependent on the question whether the machinery used for production of safety razor blades can be said to be part of "Iron & Steel Industry" and can come within category (b) mentioned hereinafter—This requires interpretation of the expression "other machinery and plant"—This is surely a question which requires, firstly

RAJIV GANDHI VIDHYA PITH SHIKSHA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION W(1), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 234/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.) &For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234B

section in the same or any other previous year.” 8 Rajiv Gandhi Vidhya Pith Shiksha vs. ITO The case of the AO was that the appellant having already claimed the capital expenditure in the preceding years/current year as application of income, the depreciation w.r.t. cost of such asset, if permitted, will amount to double deduction which was not permissible

SANTOSH KANWAR,JAIPUR vs. ITO 6(4 ) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 937/JPR/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jul 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 274Section 288Section 68Section 69C

234B, 234C, 234D & 244A(3) if applicable as per rules. ITNS-150 issued, which is forming part of this order. Issue demand notice & challan accordingly. Penalty notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is issued separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars.” 4 Santosh Kanwar, Jaipur. 4. Assessee-appellant, an individual, used to draw salary as director of Singla Buildcom

SHRI SUNDER LAL ADVANI,KOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOTA

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

ITA 356/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, (JCIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 40aSection 44A

depreciation thereon. 6. That the ld. Assessing Officer also erred in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D and the learned CIT (Appeals), Kota also erred in confirming the same. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or amend any ground on or before the date of hearing. 2. The brief facts of the case are that

SWASTIC OIL INDUSTRIES,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE -7, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 35/JPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 34 & 35/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/s. Swastic Oil Industries F-5-F8, Industrial Area Newai, Tonk 304 021 cuke Vs. The ACIT Circle-7 Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAJFS 8180 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Devang Gargieya, Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT lquokbZ

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

234B, 234C and 234F of the Act. The appellant totally denies its liability of charging and without any such interest. The interest so charged/withdraw being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, kindly be deleted in full.’’ 2.1 As regards Ground No. 1 and 2 of the assessee for A. Y. 2018-19 in ITA No. 34/JPR/2023 the brief

SWASTIC OIL INDUSTIRES,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE -7, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 34/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 34 & 35/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/s. Swastic Oil Industries F-5-F8, Industrial Area Newai, Tonk 304 021 cuke Vs. The ACIT Circle-7 Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAJFS 8180 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Devang Gargieya, Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT lquokbZ

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

234B, 234C and 234F of the Act. The appellant totally denies its liability of charging and without any such interest. The interest so charged/withdraw being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, kindly be deleted in full.’’ 2.1 As regards Ground No. 1 and 2 of the assessee for A. Y. 2018-19 in ITA No. 34/JPR/2023 the brief

AKSH OPTIFIBRE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2, ALWAR

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

ITA 170/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Akul Agarwal, C.A. (thr. V.C.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 234ASection 250

section 250 of the I.T. Act,\n1961, for the assessment year 2010-11.\n2.\nThe assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :-\n\"1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. A.O. has erred in\nlaw as well as on facts in Issuing notice u/s 148 to an entity which

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. AMRAPALI JEWELS PVT. LTD. , JAIPUR

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

ITA 740/JPR/2024[2021]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2025

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Jhanwar, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153DSection 251Section 69B

depreciation of Rs. 1,03,23,047/- against impugned additions made. 22. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 23. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend and modify all or any ground of appeal

DCIT, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, KOTA

In the result, the assessee's income is found to be not chargeable\nunder the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions\nmade, irrespective of the head of income

ITA 797/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025AY 2016-17
Section 250

Section 11 of the Act\nmade by the Appellant Trust Towards the charitable objects of the Appellant Trust.\n5. under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has\nerred in not allowing the depreciation alternatively claimed by the Appellant.\n6.\nUnder the facts and circumstances of the case

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST (NOW KOTA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY),KOTA vs. DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the assessee's income is found to be not chargeable\nunder the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions\nmade, irrespective of the head of income

ITA 812/JPR/2024[AY 2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025
Section 250

Section 11 of the Act\nmade by the Appellant Trust Towards the charitable objects of the Appellant Trust.\n5. under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has\nerred in not allowing the depreciation alternatively claimed by the Appellant.\n6.\nUnder the facts and circumstances of the case

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST,KOTA vs. DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the assessee's income is found to be not chargeable\nunder the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions\nmade, irrespective of the head of income

ITA 803/JPR/2024[AY 2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025
Section 250

Section 11 of the Act\nmade by the Appellant Trust Towards the charitable objects of the Appellant Trust.\n5. under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has\nerred in not allowing the depreciation alternatively claimed by the Appellant.\n6.\nUnder the facts and circumstances of the case

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST (NOW KOTA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY),KOTA vs. DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the assessee's income is found to be not chargeable\nunder the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions\nmade, irrespective of the head of income

ITA 813/JPR/2024[AY 2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025
Section 250

Section 11 of the Act\nmade by the Appellant Trust Towards the charitable objects of the Appellant Trust.\n5. under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has\nermed in not allowing the depreciation alternatively claimed by the Appellant.\n6.\nUnder the facts and circumstances of the case

DCIT, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, KOTA

In the result, the assessee's income is found to be not chargeable\nunder the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions\nmade, irrespective of the head of income

ITA 794/JPR/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025AY 2006-07
Section 250

Section 11 of the Act\nmade by the Appellant Trust Towards the charitable objects of the Appellant Trust.\n5. under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has\nerred in not allowing the depreciation alternatively claimed by the Appellant.\n6.\nUnder the facts and circumstances of the case

DCIT, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, KOTA

In the result, the assessee's income is found to be not chargeable\nunder the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions\nmade, irrespective of the head of income

ITA 795/JPR/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025AY 2007-08
Section 250

Section 11 of the Act\nmade by the Appellant Trust Towards the charitable objects of the Appellant Trust.\n5. under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has\nerred in not allowing the depreciation alternatively claimed by the Appellant.\n6.\nUnder the facts and circumstances of the case

DCIT, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, KOTA

In the result, the assessee's income is found to be not chargeable\nunder the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions\nmade, irrespective of the head of income

ITA 796/JPR/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025AY 2009-10
Section 250

Section 11 of the Act\nmade by the Appellant Trust Towards the charitable objects of the Appellant Trust.\n5. under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has\nerred in not allowing the depreciation alternatively claimed by the Appellant.\n6.\nUnder the facts and circumstances of the case

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST,KOTA vs. DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the assessee's income is found to be not chargeable\nunder the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions\nmade, irrespective of the head of income

ITA 774/JPR/2024[AY 2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025
Section 250

Section 11 of the Act\nmade by the Appellant Trust Towards the charitable objects of the Appellant Trust.\n5. under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has\nerred in not allowing the depreciation alternatively claimed by the Appellant.\n6.\nUnder the facts and circumstances of the case