Search: depreciation | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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 40A(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai570 Delhi441 Bangalore156 Chennai129 Ahmedabad109 Kolkata107 Raipur93 Jaipur54 Amritsar48 Hyderabad47 Surat38 Chandigarh25 Indore24 Pune22 Cochin20 Visakhapatnam15 Rajkot11 Guwahati10 Lucknow9 Cuttack8 Jodhpur6 Patna5 Karnataka5 Varanasi5 SC3 Agra3 Dehradun3 Ranchi3 Nagpur2 Calcutta2 Allahabad1 Jabalpur1 Telangana1 Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 26314 Section 143(3)7 Section 56(2)(viib)6 Addition to Income6 Section 40A(2)(b)5 Disallowance4 Section 80I3 Section 250o2 Section 562

IDANA PET INDUSTRIES P. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 330/JODH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur19 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

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

Section 143(3)Section 250oSection 40A(2)(b)Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)

section 40A (2)(b), the appellant has claimed the depreciation Rs.4,72,088/-. The entire depreciation was on non-existence

IDANA PET INDUSTRIES P. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 329/JODH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur19 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(3)Section 250oSection 40A(2)(b)Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)

section 40A (2)(b), the appellant has claimed the depreciation Rs.4,72,088/-. The entire depreciation was on non-existence

M/S. DEEPAK & COMPANY INFRA PVT. LTD. ,SRI GANGANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, SRIGANAGNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 36/JODH/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Jain (Adv.) &For Respondent: Smt. Sanchita Kumar (CIT)

Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)Section 80I

40A(2)(b) reported in audit report & ITR. 3. During the assessment proceedings, the AO had raised the queries in respect of issues for which the case of assessee was selected for scrutiny. The assessee had furnished the explanation and documentary evidences as required by the AO and the AO after due verification of issues from the documentary evidences

DCIT,CIRCLE, SRIGANGANAGAR vs. M/S. KANDA EDIBLE OIL P. LTD. , SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 190/JODH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwald.C.I.T. Vs. M/S Kanda Edible Oil Pvt. Ltd. Circle, E 173, Udyog Vihar Sriganganagar. Sriganganagar. Pan No. Aacck 7754 Q

Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)(b)

section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not as per law. He placed reliance on the decisions referred in the order of Ld. CIT(A) (supra). 7. The Ld. D/R relied on the order of AO by arguing that assessee has not filed any evidence linking that own funds have been utilised for giving the interest

M/S. PYROTECH ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,UDAIPUR vs. PR. CIT, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3/JODH/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)Section 44A

Section 263 of the Act. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:- 2 ITA 3/JODH/2021 PYEROTECH ELECTRONICS PVT LTD VS PR. CIT, UDAIPUR 1. That the Impugned order u/s 263 of the Act dated 18.02.2020 and notice u/s 263 are bad in law and on facts of the case and hence the same may kindly

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

depreciation @ 10.32% subject to depreciation, except depreciation on fixed assets claimed to be added during the year under consideration (i.e. for AY 2016-2017). When revenue challenged that order of the ld. CIT(A) net profit rate of 10.32% was applied net of depreciation means no separate deduction of depreciation was allowable. So, applying that precedent ld. AO noted that