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.

5 results for “depreciation”+ Block Assessmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,540Delhi1,189Chennai544Bangalore513Kolkata389Ahmedabad375Hyderabad192Pune144Jaipur115Chandigarh110Raipur109Karnataka77Amritsar54Cuttack53Indore38Visakhapatnam35Guwahati34Cochin33Surat31Nagpur29SC22Lucknow20Rajkot14Telangana12Allahabad10Ranchi9Agra7Jabalpur6Dehradun6Jodhpur5Panaji4Kerala2Calcutta2Punjab & Haryana1Rajasthan1D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1Orissa1Patna1

Key Topics

Section 143(1)7Section 80I5Disallowance4Addition to Income4Section 2633Section 143(3)3Section 801A2Section 32(1)(i)2Depreciation2

SIPANI WOOLEN PRIVATE LIMITED,BIKANER vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), BIKANER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 178/JODH/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur03 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Filing Of Income Tax Return & Disallowance On Account Of Incorrect

Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 32(1)(i)Section 36(1)(va)

assessment u/s 143(1). 2. The Ld. CIT(A), Bikaner was wrong in law as well as in facts in upholding an addition of Rs. 2,15,561/- in account of depreciation u/s 32(1)(i). 3. The Ld. CIT(A), Bikaner was erred by charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of IT. Act. 4. The appellant reserves right

SAMBHAV ENERGY LIMITED ,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 258/JODH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

Assessing Officer in this regard. Since the interest expenditure has been disallowed in both the years only on the reasoning that the assessee has not availed loan from the above said society and if the AO is satisfied that the assessee has taken loan, then the question of disallowing interest expenditure will not arise

SAMBHAV ENERGY LIMITED ,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 257/JODH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

Assessing Officer in this regard. Since the interest expenditure has been disallowed in both the years only on the reasoning that the assessee has not availed loan from the above said society and if the AO is satisfied that the assessee has taken loan, then the question of disallowing interest expenditure will not arise

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR vs. M/S. VISHNU PRAKASH R PUGALIA, JODHPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 9/JODH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwala.C.I.T. Vs. M/S Vishnu Prakash R Pugalia, Circle-1, P. No. 22, Subhash Colony, New Jodhpur. Pali Road, Bhagat Ki Kothi, Jodhpur. Pan No. Aadfv 4672 J

depreciation and interest third party & interest and salary to partners. A survey proceeding was conducted at the business premises of the assessee on 27.08.2013, 3 ITA 09/Jodh/2019 ACIT Vs M/s Vishnu Prakash R Pugalia. where some incrementing documents has been found and seized. After making enquiry and verifications, the AO assessed total income of the assessee at Rs.9

NAHAR COLOURS AND COATINHGS PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OFINCOMETAX, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 140/JODH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur09 Aug 2023AY 2018-19
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801ASection 80I

depreciation claimed thereon. the assessing authority was bound to consider the Explanation. Simply because the facts have been disclosed by the assessee, it does not give immunity from revisional jurisdiction which the Commissioner can exercise under section 263 and as such even in a case where the facts have been disclosed by the assessee to the assessing authority