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.

7 results for “depreciation”+ Section 269Tclear

Sorted by relevance

Ahmedabad10Visakhapatnam9Jaipur7Pune4Lucknow3Mumbai2Chandigarh2Delhi2Bangalore1Indore1Jabalpur1Kolkata1

Key Topics

Section 153A8Addition to Income7Section 696Section 143(3)5Section 143(2)5Unexplained Investment5Section 1274Business Income4Section 40A(3)3

SHRI NEERAJ PUROHIT,JAIPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 109/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Jul 2018AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Manish AgarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena, JCIT - DR
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271(1)Section 271ESection 40A(3)

depreciation. 17. In our view, as far as levy of penalty under section 271(1)© is concerned, what has to be seen is whether the conditions stipulated in Section271(1)( c) are satisfied or not and it has to be examined qua each assessment year. The condition precedent for levying the penalty is the satisfaction of the AO that there

Section 269T3
Section 142(1)2
Penalty2

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

ITA 493/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

269T of the Act by the loanee (who received advance from appellant). The learned AO is directed to examine the 10 ITA Nos. 493. 495 to 498/JP/2025 Sh. Mahendra Kumar Goyal same from the perspective of penalty u/s 271D and 271E of the Act and make a reference to the Jt. Commissioner/Addl. Commissioner. In the result this ground of appeal

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

ITA 500/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

269T of the Act by the loanee (who received advance from appellant). The learned AO is directed to examine the 10 ITA Nos. 493. 495 to 498/JP/2025 Sh. Mahendra Kumar Goyal same from the perspective of penalty u/s 271D and 271E of the Act and make a reference to the Jt. Commissioner/Addl. Commissioner. In the result this ground of appeal

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

ITA 496/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

269T of the Act by the loanee (who received advance from appellant). The learned AO is directed to examine the 10 ITA Nos. 493. 495 to 498/JP/2025 Sh. Mahendra Kumar Goyal same from the perspective of penalty u/s 271D and 271E of the Act and make a reference to the Jt. Commissioner/Addl. Commissioner. In the result this ground of appeal

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

ITA 497/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आंकड़ुठरधारी आइटीएए सं.र@ITA Nos.493, 495 to 498, 500/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष@Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2016-17, 2018-19 to 2020-21 Mahendra Kumar Goyal चुके Vs. ACIT/DCIT Ward No. 2, Shahpura Road Neem Ka Thana, Sikar Central Circle-03, Jaipur लेखा संख्याल्लेय सं.जीआइआर सं.पान@PAN/GIR No.: ACFPG0306G अपीलार्थी@Appellant प्रत्यार्थी@Respondent निर्धारीती की आर से@ Assessee by : Shri P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की आर से@ R

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

269T of the Act by the loanee (who received advance from appellant). The learned AO is directed to examine the 10 ITA Nos. 493. 495 to 498/JP/2025 Sh. Mahendra Kumar Goyal same from the perspective of penalty u/s 271D and 271E of the Act and make a reference to the Jt. Commissioner/Addl. Commissioner. In the result this ground of appeal

NEHA WADHWA,KOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 950/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ld. Cit(A).

For Appellant: Sh. C M Birla, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Monisha Choudhary, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 68

depreciation of vehicle of Rs. 1,52,940/- and vehicle running expenses for Rs.90,000/-. She also disclosed income from other sources for Rs.8,36.201/- 3.3 While explaining the source of the purchase of the car, the assessee claimed that there was a repayment from pawn debtors for Rs.8,37,500/- 3.4 The Assessing Officer asked for the details

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

depreciation following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Jain Constructions and in respect of work executed through the sub-contractor, the AO has accepted the net profit of 3% as submitted by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest the case of Jain