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.

6 results for “depreciation”+ Section 145(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai642Delhi516Chennai182Bangalore181Kolkata138Ahmedabad105Jaipur97Chandigarh75Raipur45Pune39Lucknow38Ranchi34Hyderabad30Visakhapatnam25Karnataka19Rajkot19Surat17Cochin15Amritsar15SC12Indore10Jodhpur6Cuttack6Telangana6Allahabad5Patna5Agra5Nagpur4Varanasi4Guwahati2Calcutta2Punjab & Haryana1D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1Orissa1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 1456Addition to Income5Section 143(3)4Section 404Section 10(38)3Section 683Section 1543Section 145(3)3Section 143(2)2Depreciation

BALAJI MARBLES AND TILES PVT LIMITED,KATNI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 304/JODH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 Feb 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blebalaji Marbles & Tiles Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle -1, 12 Dunne Market, Bargawan, Udaipur. Jabalpur Road, Madhya Pradesh – 483501. Pan No. Aaccb 4886 C Assessee By Shri Rahul Bardia, Ca (Virtual) Revenue By Shri P.R. Mirdha, Addl. Cit (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 18.02.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Udaipur–2 [Cit(A)], Dated 28.02.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017–18. 2. The Assessee Has Taken Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Ld Cit Erred In Law & Facts Of The Case In Rejecting The Books Of Account During Appellate Proceedings. 2. The Ld Cit Appeals Erred In Law & Facts Of The Case In Enhancing The Addition On Account Of Gp Addition Of Rs 94,24,706/-. 3. The Ld Cit Appeals Erred In Law & Facts Of The Case In Comparing The Gp Ratio Of Assessee As 2.07% Whereas The Assessee Explained

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 145(3)Section 69A

section 131/ 270A etc. Therefore, as it appears, in absence of specific mention of the CIT(A) u/s 145, prima facie the same cannot be envisaged to empower the CIT(A) to reject the books by substituting his opinion for that of the Assessing Officer. 12. In the present case, again there was no specific defect noticed in the books

2
Disallowance2

ASHOK PANWAR HUF,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assesses ITA No

ITA 56/JODH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur22 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

section 145(3) of the Act, enhanced the net profit rate from 2.76% to 8% (subject to depreciation), thereby making

ACIT, PAOTA C ROAD vs. VARAHA INFRA LIMITED, PAOTA B ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 160/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaithe Acit Vs M/S. Vardha Infra Ltd. Room No. 215, Aayakar Bhawan 6 Jalam Vilas Scheme Paota C Road, Jodhpur Paota B Road, Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccv 7972 K

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

145(3) and NP rate of 7.23% was applied as against negative NP rate of 6.97% shown by the assessee-company. On appeal by the assessee, vide appellate order dated 22.07.2018 the Ld. CIT (A-2), Udaipur in Appeal No. 10181/2018-19 upheld the rejection of books and further directed to estimate profit before depreciation @ 10.32% subject to depreciation, except depreciation

M/S. MOHTA CONSTRUCTION CO.,BIKANER vs. ACIT, BIKANER

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

ITA 95/JODH/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Jul 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Us. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- M/S Mohta Construction Co. “1. That The Assessment Completed By The Assessing Officer Is Against The Law & The Order Of Learned Cit(Appeals) Sustaining The Disallowances/Not Allowing The Deductions Claimed By The Appellant Is Bad At Law.

Section 143(1)Section 145

section 145. It is allowable deduction even after application of profit rate as per the various judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court as well as other High Courts. 6. That the Ld. A.O. is not justified in charging the interest. 7. That the appellant reserves the right to add, alter or delete any ground or grounds

ARAVALI TRADING COMPANY,NAGAUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, NAGAUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 122/JODH/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Boradaravali Trading Company, Vs Ito, 154, Near Bus Stand, Ward-1, Nagour Merta City, Nagaur, (Rajasthan) Rajasthan-341510 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabfa7735M Assessee By Shri Kishan Goyal, Ca Revenue By Shri S.M.Joshi, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing 20/03/2023 Date Of 21/03/2023 Pronouncement

Section 145(3)Section 40

145(3) of The I.T.Act nor found any tenable defects in the books of account as maintained by the appellant, in the circumstances of the case. d. That Authorities below has erred in facts by not allowing the set- off/adjustment of excess stock with short stock and as such presumptive additions should not be allowed to be sustained

M/S. M.M. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ,CHURU. vs. ITO, WARD-2,, CHURU.

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

ITA 386/JODH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur20 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Mohan, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 145Section 154

Section 145 and applied a net profit rate of 8.50% subject to claim of interest, remuneration paid to partners and depreciation. Ld. AO further noticed that assessee had earned interest on FDR amounting to Rs. 6,44,145/- . Before the Ld. AO, assessee claimed that interest receipt on FDR relate to carrying on business of the assessee