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.

194 results for “depreciation”+ Section 63clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,587Delhi1,413Bangalore505Ahmedabad462Chennai458Kolkata284Jaipur194Hyderabad191Pune156Chandigarh131Indore75Raipur72Cochin67Visakhapatnam66Cuttack57Surat51Karnataka42Lucknow39Ranchi39Rajkot33SC28Amritsar24Nagpur23Guwahati18Telangana12Dehradun12Jodhpur11Agra11Allahabad9Patna7Panaji4Calcutta3Punjab & Haryana2Jabalpur1Orissa1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1Kerala1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Addition to Income72Section 143(3)69Section 14748Section 14844Disallowance41Section 153A34Section 35A26Depreciation26Section 143(2)24Section 250

COMPUCOM SOFTWARE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-VI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 256/JPR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jun 2021AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14A

depreciation on CPP was allowed by the AO while framing the assessment under Section 143(3) after conscious consideration of the material on record. It is not even the case of the Revenue that the formation of the belief regarding the escapement of the assessment by the AO is based on any new material coming on record. Apparently, the formation

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

Showing 1–20 of 194 · Page 1 of 10

...
22
Section 234A21
Deduction20

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

depreciation in the I&E account atRs 54,63,625/-, In the absence of documentary evidence to prove that the capital expenditure on fixed assets was not claimed as application of income in the year of acquisition or later, the same is not allowable in view of section

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)

section 32 is not applicable on charitable trusts. 2. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) Ld. CIT upheld the decision of ld. AO stating that assessment made by ld. AO is conclusive. 3. SUBMISSION: 3.1. It is submitted that claim for depreciation is very much available to charitable trusts also. Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements wherein

OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION) WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

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

ITA 57/JPR/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anish Maheshwari, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl.CIT
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 164(2)

section u/s 147/148 of 1.T. Act, 1961 & reopened the case. That the Ld. CIT(A) also erred in upholding the action of Ld. A.O. for reopening of Assessment. 2 OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION VS ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD -1 , JAIPUR 2. That the Ld. A.O. grossly erred on Law and Facts in not accepting the order of Higher Authorities

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., AJMER

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 935/JPR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Feb 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Subhash Porwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 32

section 43(1) and explanation 10 thereto. Thereafter, after taking into consideration the submission and explanation of the assessee, though not agreeing with it, the AO want ahead and recalculated the depreciation claim as made by the assessee in its return of income. It is thus seen that all material facts and figures are duly disclosed in the return

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. M/S. AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., AJMER

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 937/JPR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Feb 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Subhash Porwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 32

section 43(1) and explanation 10 thereto. Thereafter, after taking into consideration the submission and explanation of the assessee, though not agreeing with it, the AO want ahead and recalculated the depreciation claim as made by the assessee in its return of income. It is thus seen that all material facts and figures are duly disclosed in the return

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. M/S. AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., AJMER

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 890/JPR/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Feb 2018AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Subhash Porwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 32

section 43(1) and explanation 10 thereto. Thereafter, after taking into consideration the submission and explanation of the assessee, though not agreeing with it, the AO want ahead and recalculated the depreciation claim as made by the assessee in its return of income. It is thus seen that all material facts and figures are duly disclosed in the return

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. M/S. AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., AJMER

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 934/JPR/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Feb 2018AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri Subhash Porwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 32

section 43(1) and explanation 10 thereto. Thereafter, after taking into consideration the submission and explanation of the assessee, though not agreeing with it, the AO want ahead and recalculated the depreciation claim as made by the assessee in its return of income. It is thus seen that all material facts and figures are duly disclosed in the return

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. M/S. AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., AJMER

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 933/JPR/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Feb 2018AY 2004-05
For Appellant: Shri Subhash Porwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 32

section 43(1) and explanation 10 thereto. Thereafter, after taking into consideration the submission and explanation of the assessee, though not agreeing with it, the AO want ahead and recalculated the depreciation claim as made by the assessee in its return of income. It is thus seen that all material facts and figures are duly disclosed in the return

ACIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. MAHIMA SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR

In the result, all the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed and ground taken by the assessee society is allowed

ITA 105/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Mar 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta (CA)For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar (CIT)
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 32

depreciation as application of income. 4. The first question that arises in the present appeal is the entitlement of the assessee society to exemption under section 11 of the Act. The relevant provisions which govern the exemption under section 11, are contained in section 2(15), 11, 12 ,12A, 12AA read with section 13 of the Act. 5. Section

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

63,017/-has been computed on such assets after considering indexation benefit. In terms of provisions of Section 115JB(5) and as held in Best Trading And Agencies Ltd. -vs- DCIT (IT'A No. 191/2011 dated 26-08-2020)(Karn. HC), gain or loss as per the provisions of Income Tax Act (Le. after indexation) on such assets

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

63,02,210/- after claiming a deduction u/s 10AA to the tune of Rs. 3,17,05,251/-. Further, assessee company also filed its audit report in Form 56F to claim the deduction u/s 10AA on 27.11.2023 wherein amount of deduction claimed was mentioned as Rs. 3,17,05,251/-. The return was processed under Section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. GOENKA JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, Ground No. 2 raised by the revenue is also dismissed

ITA 402/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalito, Ward 2(1), Jaipur ...... Appellant

For Appellant: Mr. Nishit Gandhi, Adv. (thro. VH), Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 10ASection 127Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 72Section 74

section 10AA of the Act. But subject to set off of brought forward losses of Rs. 2,57,35,984/- and depreciation of Rs. 13,63

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

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

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

63,250. 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:\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\nb. Addition

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

63,250. 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

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

depreciable asset. The order passed by the AO was without any application of mind and AO failed to bring out the facts properly as well as failed to apply the provisions of law correctly which is evident from above. 6. In view of the above, I hold that the order passed by the AO was erroneous and prejudicial

RAJASTHAN STATE MINES & MINERALS LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 253/JPR/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 May 2017AY 2007-08

section 43B. In view of the mandate of clause (a) of section 47 ITA No. 253/JP/2015 along with 13 other appeals. M/s Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Ltd. 43B of the Act, we do not see any reason to interfere into the order of the Ld. CIT(A), same is hereby affirmed, the ground of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

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

63,750/-} allowable as per expl. 5 to section 32 of IT Act for which no claim was needed.” 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee firm is engaged in the business of civil construction and has filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs. 2,64,178/- which was selected for scrutiny

YUWAM EDUCATION PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 1029/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)

depreciation (Rs.26,63,677) and other expenses. Infact the counsel of the assessee CA Parag Pareek wanted to explain the difference in the net profit by personally attending the hearing before CIT(A) but because of mouth surgery of the counsel, only partial reply was filed on 24.05.2024 but the CIT(A) passed the appellate order without providing adequate opportunity

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 500/JPR/2023[215-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

For Appellant: Sh. Dilip B Desai(C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H) &
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144B(1)(xvi)Section 80Section 80I

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory