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.

13 results for “depreciation”+ Section 250(4)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,211Delhi823Bangalore340Chennai292Kolkata259Ahmedabad244Jaipur175Hyderabad127Amritsar111Chandigarh96Cochin82Pune75Indore52Raipur47Surat43Lucknow34Visakhapatnam33Guwahati33Rajkot33Nagpur24Patna15Panaji14Jodhpur13Ranchi13Karnataka12Dehradun8SC7Cuttack6Telangana5Jabalpur5Allahabad4Agra4Varanasi3Calcutta1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 115B21Section 143(3)9Section 699Section 143(1)8Addition to Income8Section 2507Section 80I7Section 686Section 69A5Unexplained Money

SATYA NARAYAN CHOUDHARY ,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 392/JODH/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur19 Mar 2020AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainsatya Narayan Choudhary, Vs A.C.I.T., 58, Gokulpura, North Ayad, Central Circle-1, Udaipur-313001. Udaipur. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aappc 9260 P Satya Narayan Choudhary, Vs A.C.I.T., 58, Gokulpura, North Ayad, Central Circle-1, Udaipur-313001. Udaipur.

Section 115BSection 139Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

250 ITR 467, (ii) Vasanthi vs. ACIT 257 ITR 94, (iii) Surendra Khandhar vs. ACIT 321 ITR 254 (Bom.) (iv) Jagjit Pal Singh Anand vs. CIT 320 ITR 106 (Del.). Recently, the ITAT, Delhi in the case of Rajendra Kumar vs. DCIT in ITA No.1959/Del/2017 dated 27.02.2020 held that no addition is warranted 6 ITA 266 & 392/Jodh/2019 Satya Nr. Choudhary

3
Unexplained Cash Credit2
Depreciation2

SATYA NARAYAN CHOUDHARY ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 266/JODH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur19 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainsatya Narayan Choudhary, Vs A.C.I.T., 58, Gokulpura, North Ayad, Central Circle-1, Udaipur-313001. Udaipur. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aappc 9260 P Satya Narayan Choudhary, Vs A.C.I.T., 58, Gokulpura, North Ayad, Central Circle-1, Udaipur-313001. Udaipur.

Section 115BSection 139Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

250 ITR 467, (ii) Vasanthi vs. ACIT 257 ITR 94, (iii) Surendra Khandhar vs. ACIT 321 ITR 254 (Bom.) (iv) Jagjit Pal Singh Anand vs. CIT 320 ITR 106 (Del.). Recently, the ITAT, Delhi in the case of Rajendra Kumar vs. DCIT in ITA No.1959/Del/2017 dated 27.02.2020 held that no addition is warranted 6 ITA 266 & 392/Jodh/2019 Satya Nr. Choudhary

SANJU SONI,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), JODHPUR

14. In view of the above findings, both the appeals deserve to be allowed

ITA 898/JODH/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Soni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ayushi Sharma, JCIT-DR
Section 115BSection 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 250

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), relating to the assessment year 2022-23, whereby his appeal challenging intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act issued by Centraized Processing Centre (CPC), has been dismissed, on the following grounds:- “On perusal of the documents attached by the appellant, the contention of appellant is not found

SANJU SONI,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), JODHPUR

14. In view of the above findings, both the appeals deserve to be allowed

ITA 899/JODH/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Soni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ayushi Sharma, JCIT-DR
Section 115BSection 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 250

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), relating to the assessment year 2022-23, whereby his appeal challenging intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act issued by Centraized Processing Centre (CPC), has been dismissed, on the following grounds:- “On perusal of the documents attached by the appellant, the contention of appellant is not found

DR. MANISH CHHAPARWAL ,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

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

ITA 53/JODH/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Kothari, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 250

250 of the IT Act, 1961 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Udaipur is bad in law, illegal and void. 2. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Udaipur has erred in affirming the order of Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Udaipur in making addition of Rs.19,50,000/- on account

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

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [for brevity, the "Act"] for the Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16, date of orders 20/12/2023 and 17/07/2023, respectively. The impugned orders emanated from the order of the Ld. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-3, Jodhpur [for brevity, the "Ld. AO"] passed under section 143(3) of the Act, date of orders

ANKUR NAHAR,BHILWARA vs. CIT/ ITO, WARD-2, BHILWARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing no

ITA 174/JODH/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur06 Dec 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 174/Jodh/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-20

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 32Section 36(1)Section 44A

250 of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity ‘the Act’] for A.Y. I.T.A. No. 174/Jodh/2022 2 Assessment Year: 2019-20 2019-20. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the CPC, Bengaluru, [in brevity ‘the AO’] order passed u/s 143(1) of the Act. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “l. Under the facts & circumstances

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

section 40(a)(ia) be made. The AO is directed to delete separate addition of Rs. 13,87,72.635/- made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. GOA no. 4 is, therefore, allowed. 8.4. GoA no, 2- "The Id. AO has erred in rejecting the books of accounts. The Id. AO has erred in applying ne t profit rate

DCIT, CIRCLE, PALI vs. SHRI BRIJ BHUSHAN GOYAL, FARIDABAD.

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 297/JODH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur14 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripotedcit Vs. Shri Brij Bhushan Circle, Pali., Goyal, Jodhpur. House No. 331, Sector Rajasthan. 16A, Faridabad, Haryana.-121002 Pan/Gir No. : Aawpg8405D Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri Amit Kothari, Ca. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Nidhi Nair, Jcit -Dr Date Of Hearing 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 14.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – I, Jodhpur Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, CA. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Nair, JCIT -DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80CSection 80DSection 80ISection 80T

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT (A) is justified in allowing the claim of deduction of Rs. 1,68,71,111/- u/s 80IC of the I.T. Act ignoring the report of the Tehsildar that Khasa

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

4. ADDITION OF EXCESS STOCK Rs. 39,97,250/- 5. ADDITION ON A/C OF SUPPRESSED SALE OF Rs. 43,95,509/- Rs. 43,955/- a. That Authorities below erred in law and in facts while making addition for hypothetical excess stock found in different packing during the course of survey proceeding for Rs. 39,97,250/- as well

M/S BHAGIRATH DAIRY PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGAUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, NAGAUR

The appeal is allowed

ITA 755/JODH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 44Section 68Section 69Section 69A

section 68 of the act and and added to the income of the assessee. In addition to the cash-credits, the AO has further made addition of Rs. 8,56,000/- u/s 69A of the by treating the deposit in the name of Sh. Mohan Ram Choudhary and Smt.Tulchi Devi

SUBHASH CHAND JAIN ,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 112/JODH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur28 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 250

250 passed by the Hon'ble C1T (A), Jodhpur vide order dated 23.10.2018, received on 03.01.2019. That the appeal ought to be filled till 03.06.2020, Our consul has advise to file the appeal before Hon'ble Tribunal against the order passed by Hon'ble CI (A), but as my wife is suffering from brain tumor and was continue serious, hence

SUBHASH CHAND JAIN ,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 111/JODH/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur28 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 250

250 passed by the Hon'ble C1T (A), Jodhpur vide order dated 23.10.2018, received on 03.01.2019. That the appeal ought to be filled till 03.06.2020, Our consul has advise to file the appeal before Hon'ble Tribunal against the order passed by Hon'ble CI (A), but as my wife is suffering from brain tumor and was continue serious, hence