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.

187 results for “depreciation”+ Section 250clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,210Delhi815Bangalore338Ahmedabad269Chennai267Kolkata264Jaipur187Hyderabad131Chandigarh119Amritsar117Pune94Cochin85Indore60Raipur48Visakhapatnam45Surat44Rajkot34Guwahati33Lucknow30Nagpur24Patna16Panaji14Ranchi13Jodhpur13Karnataka12Dehradun10SC7Agra6Cuttack6Jabalpur5Telangana5Allahabad4Varanasi3Calcutta1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Addition to Income65Section 143(3)58Section 25043Section 14841Section 14739Section 153A38Disallowance28Deduction27Section 35A26Depreciation

SHRI DHARMENDRA KUMAR PAREEK,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 457/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jun 2019AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.K. Rawat (Jt.CIT)
Section 2Section 54Section 54BSection 54F

250/-. The AO observed that the assessee has sold the agricultural land whereas the deduction under section 54 is allowable on sale of residential house. The AO further noted that the agricultural land has been sold by the assessee vide single sale deed and, therefore, the agricultural land and construction thereon was considered as single unit in the said sale

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

Showing 1–20 of 187 · Page 1 of 10

...
26
Section 143(2)21
Section 234A20

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

ITA 294/JPR/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

250 of the Act does not prescribe a mandatory time\nlimit for disposal of appeals. If the power claimed by the CIT(A) in the present\ncase were valid, he could pass directions in the year 2030 instructing the AO\nto initiate reassessment proceedings for the present assessment year. Such a\ndirection would enable the AO to reopen assessments long

M/S RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD.,VIDYUT BHAWAN, JAN PATH, JYOTI NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, , JAIPUR

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

ITA 261/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri James Kurian (CIT)
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 147

depreciation as on 31.03.2015 is to the extent of Rs.2034.40 crore. Providing financial help by the Government to these companies also cannot be a reason for not allowing the claim of bad debt. 5. The claim of bad debts is allowable u/s 36(1)(vii) which reads as under:- “subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), the amount

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

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

ITA 291/JPR/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

250 of the Act does not prescribe a mandatory time limit for disposal of appeals. If the power claimed by the CIT(A) in the present case were valid, he could pass directions in the year 2030 instructing the AO to initiate reassessment proceedings for the present assessment year. Such a direction would enable the AO to reopen assessments long

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

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

ITA 301/JPR/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

250 of the Act does not prescribe a mandatory time limit for disposal of appeals. If the power claimed by the CIT(A) in the present case were valid, he could pass directions in the year 2030 instructing the AO to initiate reassessment proceedings for the present assessment year. Such a direction would enable the AO to reopen assessments long

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

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

ITA 303/JPR/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

250 of the Act does not prescribe a mandatory time\nlimit for disposal of appeals. If the power claimed by the CIT(A) in the present\ncase were valid, he could pass directions in the year 2030 instructing the AO\nto initiate reassessment proceedings for the present assessment year. Such a\ndirection would enable the AO to reopen assessments long

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 of only Rs. 11,250/- on tools and plants was allowed as claimed by the assessee in the profit and loss account. It was submitted that as per explanation 5 to Section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SAPNA KARNANI, TONK PHATAK

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

ITA 712/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT, DR
Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 68Section 69C

250.\n2.9 The power to issue directions in the manner exercised by the Id. CIT(A) in the\npresent case is clearly unwarranted and impermissible under the scheme of Act.\nIf such power to issue binding directions for assessment under Sections 153C\nread with Section 150 were to be vested in the hands of the CIT(A), it would lead

DYNAMIC POWERTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 231/JPR/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 May 2025AY 2023-24

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

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 154Section 250

250 was passed by Ld. CIT(A) in the case of assessee company on 26.09.2024, which stood served on the e-portal of the assessee company. Against the order so passed, appeal could have been filed within 60 days, from the service of the order. However, the appeal got delayed by 84 days, as the appeal was filed

SYLVAN GREENS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 414/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Smt. Neelam Bhala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 801C

section 250 of Income Tax Act by the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) without providing the proper opportunity of being heard, is contrary to the principles of natural justice and equity and liable to be quashed. 2.1 Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing Kraft Paper in the State

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. KARNANI SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 850/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 May 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(4)

depreciation allowance or any other\nallowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in\nthis section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year):\nProvided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this\nsection has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

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

250. The assessment was completed under Section 153A\nvide order dated 21.09.2021, determining the total income at Rs.73,84,060. This\nresulted in an addition of Rs.42,20,814, which included:\n\na. Disallowance of long-term capital gains exemption of Rs.40,15,061.29 by\ntreating the sale of listed equity shares as a bogus transaction; and\n\nb. Addition

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

250 of the Income Tax\r\nAct 1961 [ for short Act ]dated 27.05.2025 for the assessment year 2019-\r\n20. Ld. CIT(A) passed that order because the assessee had challenged\r\nassessment order dated 27.02.2024 passed under section 147r.w.s.144\r\nread with section 144B of the Act by National Faceless Assessment Unit of\r\nIncome Tax Department [ for short

HINDUSTAN SALES INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 94/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

depreciation the same is added back while computing the capital gain. The building was old and minor construction was of no use and therefore, the AO has considered it being very minor amount. Relying on the judgement of Hon’ble Madras High Court the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that deprecation asset along is 19 HINDUSTAN SALES INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. DCIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 201/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 May 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)
Section 40A(2)(b)

depreciation disallowed on catalyst. 10. This ground of the Revenue is covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in ITA Nos. 461 & 575/JP/2015 for the A.Y. 2011-12 at page 12 para 21 as under :- “21. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties, perused the material available on the record and the earlier

M/S. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 744/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 May 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)
Section 40A(2)(b)

depreciation disallowed on catalyst. 10. This ground of the Revenue is covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in ITA Nos. 461 & 575/JP/2015 for the A.Y. 2011-12 at page 12 para 21 as under :- “21. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties, perused the material available on the record and the earlier

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 291/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 May 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)
Section 40A(2)(b)

depreciation disallowed on catalyst. 10. This ground of the Revenue is covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in ITA Nos. 461 & 575/JP/2015 for the A.Y. 2011-12 at page 12 para 21 as under :- “21. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties, perused the material available on the record and the earlier

ANAMIKA CONDUCTORS PVT. LTD. ,JAIPUR vs. ACITDCIT, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

7. In view of the above reasons and findings, this appeal deserves to be allowed

ITA 471/JPR/2024[A.Y. 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jun 2024

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

For Appellant: Shri G.M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 270ASection 32Section 80Section 80I

250 of the Act. 2.5 Learned CIT(A) upheld the observation by the AO that the assessee had claimed depreciation of Rs.3,23,689/- twice i.e. once while computing deduction u/s 80IA of the Act and then while calculating total taxable income. Holding that the assessee was not entitled to claim depreciation on same set of assets twice, Learned

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SAPNA KARNANI, TONK PHATAK

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

ITA 709/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT, DR
Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 68Section 69C

250.\n2.9 The power to issue directions in the manner exercised by the Id. CIT(A) in the\npresent case is clearly unwarranted and impermissible under the scheme of Act.\nIf such power to issue binding directions for assessment under Sections 153C\nread with Section 150 were to be vested in the hands of the CIT(A), it would lead

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 152/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT
Section 115JSection 250Section 32(1)(ii)Section 80Section 80I

section 250 of the Shree Cement Limited, Beawar. IT Act for the assessment year 2014-15. The grounds raised by the assessee and revenue are as under :- 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (Appeals) was not justified and erred in rejecting the appellant’s claim of allowing reliability charge