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.

4 results for “depreciation”+ Unexplained Moneyclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai397Delhi320Chennai124Bangalore95Jaipur88Kolkata74Ahmedabad61Hyderabad52Chandigarh34Pune25Indore23Raipur19Lucknow18Visakhapatnam17Nagpur12Cochin12Guwahati11Surat10Rajkot10Allahabad7Varanasi7Agra6Cuttack5Ranchi5Jodhpur4Amritsar4SC3Patna3Jabalpur1Karnataka1Telangana1Dehradun1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)6Section 2635Addition to Income4Section 683Section 115B3

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

unexplained. The Learned CIT(A) had a wrong notion that amount being from relatives was not genuine whereas the contrary is truth that money normally comes from friends and relatives. More so is true in the case of the assessee, being of totally rural background. It is further submitted that in the rural background, transactions through bank are done under

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

money, which a person and family of repute cannot keep. The statement recorded by your officer during the search were under duress and chhaparwal's retract the same. The facts mentioned above ore true and correct. 8 Dr. Manish Chhaparwal v. DCIT A detailed submission made to the Id. AO under letter dated j. 12.9.2019 placed at annexure 3. However

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

unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT Act & to be taxed at special rate u/s 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961. Which resulted in under charge of tax and interest having total tax effect of Rs.58,50,128/-." 8.1 The Ld. AR contended that the assessee submitted detailed reply before the PCIT on the issue raised in show-cause notice

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIPUR vs. M/S. WAGAD CONSTRUTION COMPANY, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 30/JODH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur12 Jan 2023AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri Venkatesh V. (JCIT-Sr.DR)
Section 143(1)

depreciation of Rs. 51,77,474/-. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in the law the ld. CIT (A) had erred by admitting additional evidence without granted requisite opportunity to the Assessing Officer. First, we deal with the appeal in ITA No. 30/Jodh/2020. M/s. Wagad Construction Co. & M/s. Wagad Infra Project Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur. Ground