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.

4 results for “depreciation”+ Section 928clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai164Delhi104Bangalore47Ahmedabad32Kolkata25Chennai13Hyderabad13Chandigarh9Pune6Jodhpur6Guwahati5Jaipur4Raipur3Lucknow2Indore2Surat1Telangana1Karnataka1Visakhapatnam1Panaji1Punjab & Haryana1SC1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)4Section 14A4Disallowance3Section 1472Section 143(1)2Section 2632Section 36(1)(va)2Section 37(1)2Addition to Income2

M/S. K.D.JAIN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,MADANGANJ vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), AJMER

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1248/JPR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Apr 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Kataria, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT
Section 10Section 143(3)

928/- respectively which have already been given to the Assessee Society while framing the assessment order. Further, the Assessee Society has stated that huge expenses of Rs. 50,00,000/ have been disallowed without any basis. In this regard, it is submitted that the case was selected under limited scrutiny to examine whether the large deductions against income from Other

CASTAMET WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHARWA vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR

ITA 187/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur
04 Oct 2022
AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Sh. Prakul Khurana (Adv.) &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(va)

928/- is concerned, the same being common expense has been considered by the Assessee for disallowance u/s 14A of the Act at Rs.5,347/- calculated as per its detailed working submitted during assessment. The copy of the same is enclosed as Annexure___ for your ready reference. However, expenditure of Rs. 7,20,412/- is a specific expense have been used

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 812/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

Section 194 and 200 were challenged. It was noted in P. RatnakarRao and others V. Govt. Of A.P. and others (1996 (5) SCC 359) that the discretion given under Section 200(1) to the State Government to prescribe maximum rates for compounding the offence is not unguided, uncanalised and arbitrary. It was, inter alia, held as follows: ……………….. ………………. It is indisputable

ANUSHA FINVEST PVT LTD ,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 985/JPR/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2010-2011

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

For Appellant: Sh. Saurav Harsh, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

depreciation of Rs. 2,35,053 in their original return filed on 16.09.2010. Upon reviewing their income return for AY 2017-18, it is evident that the loss is still being carried forward, with no apparent benefit to the assessee-appellant who was already struggling with losses. It is worth noting that the assessee did not have significant profits that