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.

156 results for “depreciation”+ Section 65clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,707Delhi1,443Bangalore581Chennai473Ahmedabad412Kolkata319Hyderabad180Pune167Jaipur156Chandigarh152Raipur83Visakhapatnam70Indore69Surat65Amritsar58Cochin49Cuttack46Karnataka45Lucknow40Ranchi35Rajkot35Guwahati28Nagpur24SC19Jodhpur17Telangana13Agra10Allahabad8Calcutta5Dehradun5Panaji4Patna4Varanasi4Punjab & Haryana3Rajasthan3Orissa1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Jabalpur1Kerala1

Key Topics

Addition to Income75Section 143(3)68Disallowance51Section 153A40Depreciation32Section 80I30Section 14729Section 14826Section 1124Section 143(2)

ACIT, KOTA vs. MANGALAM CEMENT LTD., KOTA

ITA 82/JPR/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jan 2017AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri H.V. Gurjar (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(i)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 43B

65,41,700/- as against returned income of Rs.76,09,97,363/-Later on it is revealed that the assessee claimed and was allowed deduction of depreciation Rs. 70.53 crore, which include Rs. 18,16,98,068/- being the amount of additional depreciation on the assets of power generating units. As the additional depreciation was allowable only on such plan

Showing 1–20 of 156 · Page 1 of 8

...
23
Section 12A22
Deduction20

M/S. MAHARAJA SHREE UMAID MILLS LTD. JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 784/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2020AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri P.C.Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (JCIT)
Section 10Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 40

65,893/- being additional depreciation and an addition of Rs.3,69,463/- due to transfer pricing adjustments. The Assessing Officer disallowed the same since the additional depreciation under Section

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)

depreciation under section 32(1) would mean double deduction, which is not permissible in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. v. Union of India [1993] 199 ITR 43/[1992] 65

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

65,008 Less: Excess Prov. For Doubtful Debt written back (15,85,10,128) Unabsorbed depreciation or business loss as per books whichever is lower (1,62,54,32,352) Book Profit as per 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

65,210 the appellant has claimed a refund of Rs. 16,99,26,055 in the original return of income filed on 30.11.2019. 9 Shree Cement Limited vs. ACIT The above return was processed vide intimation as per provision of section 143(1) of the Act on 15.01.2021. While processing that ITR learned Assistant Director of Income Tax CPC Bangalore

BANSAL CLASSES PVIVATE LTD.,KOTA vs. JCIT, KOTA

In the result, revenue’s ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 698/JPR/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Oct 2017AY 2010-11
Section 40A(2)(b)

65,348/- made by the AO on account of depreciation on PLD unit building on the basis of additional evidence admitted in violation of Rule 46A. (iii) deleting the addition of Rs. 5,52,000/- out of total addition of Rs. 7,94,000/- made by the AO u/s 40A(2)(b) out of salary paid; (iv) deleting the addition

AHLUWALIA ERECTORS AND FEBRICATIONS PVT. LTD.,KOTA vs. ACIT CIR-1 KOTA , KOTA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 953/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234A

65,771 is being disallowed considering the reason, as stated above. (Disallowance of depreciation and interest claimed on vehicles of Rs. 5,32,219/-)” On this aspect, the ld. CIT(A) at page 6 para 5.2 held as under: “5.2.1 Ground No. 1: Disallowance of depreciation and interest on vehicles. The Assessing officer noted that the appellant had claimed depreciation

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

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 43 applicable, excess depreciation provided by Rs 1077958.00, only on the basis of suspicious without making any enquiry from the assessee. The nature of subsidy received by the assessee is in the form of VAT Exemption given by the Himachal Pradesh State Government to promote establishment of new unit/expansion of existing unit in the state of Himachal Pradesh

SHASHI KANT KHETAN,JHUNJHUNU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JHUNJHUNU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 986/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Jagdish Chand Kulhari (JCIT)
Section 145(3)

Section 144 of Income Tax Act provides best judgment assessment meaning thereby the A.O. is bound to assess a fair income by considering the results of inquiries conducted by him, past history of the assessee and comparative cases. In this case the ld. A.O. has not taken into account past history of the assessee and no any comparative case

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

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

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

ITA 496/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOTA vs. M/S SHIV VEGPRO PVT. LTD., KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 739/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jul 2020AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

65,470/-. Further the Addl. DIT (Inv.) Jaipur vide letter no. 587 dated 13.03.2018 has informed that an investigation report was received from DIT (Inv.) Chandigarh alongwith list of beneficiary. 18 M/s. Shiv Vegpro Pvt. Ltd., Kota. As per the information, the assessee has ltaken accommodation entry of Rs. 4,55,43,635/- during the F.Y. 2010-11 from Shree

SHRI SALASAR BALAJI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1186/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Apr 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Mr. Saurav Harsh, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, JCIT, Ld. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

65, 00,440/-) Rs.2, 01, 00,440/-, whereas the actual\namount sustained was Rs.1.4 Cr. Only, as emerged out of the order of the Ld. CIT\n(A) that this was the factual error committed by the AO, further the same is not\nunder challenge by the revenue before us. In the similar facts the decision of the\nHon

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 disallowance on catalyst. iii) Curtailing disallowance out of interest paid on borrowed funds to Rs. 22,45,000/- as against that of Rs. 55,92,19,845/- made by AO since the decision of ld. CIT (A) is not in conformity with the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case

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 disallowance on catalyst. iii) Curtailing disallowance out of interest paid on borrowed funds to Rs. 22,45,000/- as against that of Rs. 55,92,19,845/- made by AO since the decision of ld. CIT (A) is not in conformity with the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case

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 disallowance on catalyst. iii) Curtailing disallowance out of interest paid on borrowed funds to Rs. 22,45,000/- as against that of Rs. 55,92,19,845/- made by AO since the decision of ld. CIT (A) is not in conformity with the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ANGEL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

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

ITA 761/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Dec 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta
Section 147Section 151

65,60,08,500/- (b) Whether it is a case of under assessment, assessment at too low rate assessment which has been made the subject of excessive relief or allowing or ITA 464 & 761/JP/2018_ 35 M/s Angel Infrastructure P Ltd. Vs DCIT excessive loss or depreciation: 10. Whether the provisions of section

M/S ANGEL INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

ITA 464/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Dec 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta
Section 147Section 151

65,60,08,500/- (b) Whether it is a case of under assessment, assessment at too low rate assessment which has been made the subject of excessive relief or allowing or ITA 464 & 761/JP/2018_ 35 M/s Angel Infrastructure P Ltd. Vs DCIT excessive loss or depreciation: 10. Whether the provisions of section

ACIT, KOTA vs. SHIV AGREVO LTD., BARAN

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 453/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 May 2017AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra GargieyaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (JCIT)
Section 143(2)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)(b)

65 DTR 196 (Raj). 6. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties, perused the material available on record and also gone through the orders of the authorities below. Admittedly, the rejection of books of accounts is not challenged by the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) has sustained the action of the Assessing Officer in respect of rejection