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.

8 results for “depreciation”+ Section 36(1)(va)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai151Delhi126Ahmedabad112Raipur86Chennai84Jaipur61Chandigarh52Kolkata39Bangalore39Hyderabad34Surat30Pune28Indore21Amritsar16Cochin15Guwahati14Jodhpur8Lucknow7Visakhapatnam6Rajkot5Varanasi5Cuttack4Rajasthan3Karnataka3SC3Dehradun2Allahabad2Telangana2Nagpur1Calcutta1

Key Topics

Section 143(1)9Section 1398Section 2637Section 143(3)6Section 36(1)(va)6Disallowance6Section 143(2)5Section 80I5Section 143(1)(a)4Deduction

M/S TARUN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,WARD NO.24, NEAR BHAGAT SINGH CHOWK, SURATGARH vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ITO, WARD-1, SRIGANGANAGAR, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, appeals are dismissed

ITA 109/JODH/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Rajeev Mohan, JCIT-DR
Section 10ASection 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

36(1)(va) and 2(24)(x) of the Act, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. (supra) has held as under : “32. The scheme of the provisions relating to deductions, such as Sections 32 - 37, on the other hand, deal primarily with business, commercial or professional expenditure, under various heads (including depreciation

3
Depreciation3
Addition to Income3

M/S TARUN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,WARD NO.24, NEAR BHAGAT SINGH CHOWK, SURATGARH vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ITO, WARD-1, SRIGANGANAGAR , SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, appeals are dismissed

ITA 108/JODH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Rajeev Mohan, JCIT-DR
Section 10ASection 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

36(1)(va) and 2(24)(x) of the Act, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. (supra) has held as under : “32. The scheme of the provisions relating to deductions, such as Sections 32 - 37, on the other hand, deal primarily with business, commercial or professional expenditure, under various heads (including depreciation

HISTORIC RESORT HOTELS PVT. LTD.,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

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

ITA 91/JODH/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur08 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of The Return.

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.M. Joshi, JCIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

section 36(1)(va) of the Act in view of the binding decisions of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court. “ 11. Since the facts of the present cases are identical to the facts involved in the aforesaid referred to cases, therefore respectfully following the earlier orders as referred to herein above of the different Benches of the ITAT, the impugned

THE LAKE PALACE HOTELS & MOTELSPRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. PCIT,CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 52/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur27 Sept 2023AY 2017-18
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

36(1)(va) and section 43(b) of The Income Tax Act for such disallowances are applicable from the Assessment Year 2021- 22 and onwards. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the order passed u/s 263 of the IT Act is bad in law and, void ab-initio and deserves to be annulled

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

va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act the issue was covered based on the jurisdictional high court decision and therefore, the issue was debatable and law does not permit the review of each every order after the same is considered and decided based on the law and judicial wisdom prevalent at the time of passing the order. Not only

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)

section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, by the DCIT, CPC. 2 Sipani woolen Pvt Ltd. 2. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds:- “1. The ld. CIT(A), Bikaner was wrong in law as well as in facts in upholding an addition of Rs. 2,26,484/- on account of employer and employee contribution

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

1 raised by the assessee in his appeal is against the substance of NP rate of 10.16% subject to Depreciation as against the NP rate of 11.50% subject to Depreciation on Gross work receipt. Briefly stated the fact of the case are that the assessee had shown 13.06% Gross profit rate on total work receipt

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

1 raised by the assessee in his appeal is against the substance of NP rate of 10.16% subject to Depreciation as against the NP rate of 11.50% subject to Depreciation on Gross work receipt. Briefly stated the fact of the case are that the assessee had shown 13.06% Gross profit rate on total work receipt