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 97clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,445Delhi1,150Bangalore514Chennai390Kolkata240Ahmedabad231Jaipur124Hyderabad90Raipur60Amritsar50Chandigarh49Indore48Pune46Lucknow40Visakhapatnam29Rajkot24Cochin21Guwahati19Ranchi18Karnataka15SC15Surat10Nagpur9Cuttack8Jodhpur6Telangana6Patna5Dehradun4Allahabad4Calcutta3Agra2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Punjab & Haryana1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Kerala1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 1399Section 143(1)5Section 2635Addition to Income5Section 114Section 143(3)4Section 143(1)(a)4Section 404Section 12A(1)(ba)3

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

97,832/-, as above, the AO will further allow depreciation as per the I.T. Act, but depreciation on fixed assets claimed to be added during the year under consideration, will be disallowed The ground of appeal is decided in the above terms. 7.6 A clarification is added at this point. The assessee has contended that there was a loss

SHRI SEWARAM CHARITABLE TRUST ,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD, EXEMPTION, UDAIPUR

Deduction3
Disallowance3
Set Off of Losses2

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7/JODH/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Aug 2023AY 2020-21
Section 1Section 11Section 119Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ba)Section 139Section 139(4)Section 139(4)(a)Section 143(1)

depreciation) 33,42,711 Capital Expenses 1,84,965 2,84,23,799 Net Surplus 2,97,693 3. The AO(CPC) while processing the return did not allow the revenue expenditure and capital expenditure claimed in the return without assigning any reason and thus assessed the total income at Rs.2,87,21,492/- as against declared income of Rs.2

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)

97,693/- and Rs.33,54,760/-. Contesting the disallowances, the assessee preferred appeals before the first appellate authority. However, relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2022) 143 taxmann.com 178, the first appellate authority upheld the disallowances. Being aggrieved, the assessee is before us. 4. At the time

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)

97,693/- and Rs.33,54,760/-. Contesting the disallowances, the assessee preferred appeals before the first appellate authority. However, relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2022) 143 taxmann.com 178, the first appellate authority upheld the disallowances. Being aggrieved, the assessee is before us. 4. At the time

PUSHP RAJ BOHRA,JALORE vs. PR. CIT – 1, JODHPUR, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 374/JODH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Hon'Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

97 (All) iv. CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) v. CIT vs. Parmanad, D. B. Income Tax Appeal No. 137/2014 vi. CIT vs. M/s. Jain Construction, D. B. Income Tax Appeal No. 60/2012 6. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative supported the impugned order of learned CIT. He has submitted that that order under

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

97,250/- as well as on account of shortage of stock found in different packing during the course of same survey proceeding and treated as hypothetically suppressed sale of Rs. 43,95,509/-and made addition of Rs. 43,955/- by applying hypothetical G P rate @ 1% on hypothetically presumed suppressed sale. 2 | P a g e b. That Authorities