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.

2 results for “depreciation”+ Section 255(7)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi380Mumbai371Bangalore132Chennai126Kolkata71Chandigarh51Ahmedabad40Jaipur32Hyderabad23Pune20Amritsar12Raipur9Cochin9Surat9Karnataka9Lucknow9Cuttack8Guwahati8SC6Rajkot6Telangana3Dehradun3Nagpur3Panaji3Visakhapatnam2Jodhpur2Punjab & Haryana1Indore1Gauhati1Calcutta1

Key Topics

Section 10(38)3Section 683Section 143(3)2Section 143(2)2

SHRI DEVKRIPA TEXTILE MILLS (P) LTD. ,BHILWARA vs. ACIT, BHILWARA CIRCLE, BHILWARA

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

ITA 467/JODH/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur05 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

7. The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee has not completely stopped the business and there was only suspension of business for a temporary period. He submitted that the business has been revived in the succeeding year. Accordingly, he submitted that the tax authorities are not justified in making disallowances out of director’s remuneration; out of depreciation

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

255/- and total amount comes to Rs.1,65,22,302/-. The Assessing Officer further added Rs.8,08,458/- related to 145(3) of the Act on account of increase of net profit from 2.76% to 8% on the bogus expenses. The aggrieved assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) upheld the impugned assessment order, after considering