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.

16 results for “depreciation”+ Section 29clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,676 Delhi2,497 Bangalore1,033 Chennai795 Kolkata512 Ahmedabad386 Jaipur221 Hyderabad198 Karnataka164 Pune131 Raipur115 Chandigarh109 Indore87 Amritsar65 Cochin55 Surat51 Visakhapatnam46 SC42 Lucknow39 Ranchi39 Rajkot32 Telangana26 Guwahati25 Jodhpur22 Cuttack19 Kerala16 Nagpur13 Dehradun6 Panaji6 Patna6 Calcutta5 Varanasi5 Agra4 Allahabad4 Rajasthan2 D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1 A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1 Punjab & Haryana1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1 Gauhati1 Tripura1 Jabalpur1 MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 2634 Section 115B3 Section 682

BHIMA JEWELLERS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

ITA/15/2021HC Kerala25 Aug 2022

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

For Appellant: M/S BHIMA JEWELLERSFor Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Section 115Section 115BSection 263Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69BSection 69CSection 69D

29 of the Act provides that it has to be computed in accordance with the methods provided under sections 30 to 43D. The depreciation

M/S. KINFRA EXPORT PROMOTION INDUSTRIAL PARKS LTD., vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD)

ITA/65/2018HC Kerala07 Apr 2022

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

depreciation on a cost that the assessee did not pay himself. The Supreme Court also noted the controversy in P J Chemicals is not whether a portion of the cost is met directly or indirectly by any other person or authority, ITA Nos.62&65/2018 26 and if so, it should be deducted or not. If a portion of the cost

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. GRACY BABU,

ITA/48/2020HC Kerala03 Apr 2024

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

For Respondent: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

section 194C of the Income Tax Act, towards the cost of the said constructions as per clause above which will be accounted by the first party in the books of accounts of the Trust. 4. The 2nd party i.e. parties 1 to 3 and 8 confirm that they have not further claim from the amount of Rs.3.75 crores

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. SMT.GRACY BABU,

ITA/54/2020HC Kerala03 Apr 2024

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

For Respondent: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

section 194C of the Income Tax Act, towards the cost of the said constructions as per clause above which will be accounted by the first party in the books of accounts of the Trust. 4. The 2nd party i.e. parties 1 to 3 and 8 confirm that they have not further claim from the amount of Rs.3.75 crores

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REENA JOSE

ITA/47/2020HC Kerala03 Apr 2024

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

For Respondent: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

section 194C of the Income Tax Act, towards the cost of the said constructions as per clause above which will be accounted by the first party in the books of accounts of the Trust. 4. The 2nd party i.e. parties 1 to 3 and 8 confirm that they have not further claim from the amount of Rs.3.75 crores

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS

ITA/46/2020HC Kerala03 Apr 2024

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

For Respondent: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

section 194C of the Income Tax Act, towards the cost of the said constructions as per clause above which will be accounted by the first party in the books of accounts of the Trust. 4. The 2nd party i.e. parties 1 to 3 and 8 confirm that they have not further claim from the amount of Rs.3.75 crores

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS,

ITA/56/2020HC Kerala03 Apr 2024

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

For Respondent: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

section 194C of the Income Tax Act, towards the cost of the said constructions as per clause above which will be accounted by the first party in the books of accounts of the Trust. 4. The 2nd party i.e. parties 1 to 3 and 8 confirm that they have not further claim from the amount of Rs.3.75 crores

PTL ENTERPRISES LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

ITA/200/2013HC Kerala22 Jul 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

For Appellant: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXFor Respondent: M/S.PTL ENTERPRISES LTD

section 154? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in sustaining the order of rectification passed by the Assessing Officer on 16.10.2008 when the CIT(A) had already recorded a fining that the appellant had continued its business during the year and no mistake was apparent from record

M/S.PTL ENTERPRISES LTD. (FORMERLY PREMIER TYRES LTD) vs. THE ASSISTNAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),RANGE-2, ERNAKULAM

ITA/207/2013HC Kerala22 Jul 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

For Appellant: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXFor Respondent: M/S.PTL ENTERPRISES LTD

section 154? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in sustaining the order of rectification passed by the Assessing Officer on 16.10.2008 when the CIT(A) had already recorded a fining that the appellant had continued its business during the year and no mistake was apparent from record

PTL ENTERPRISES LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSONER OF INCOME TX

ITA/206/2013HC Kerala22 Jul 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

For Appellant: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXFor Respondent: M/S.PTL ENTERPRISES LTD

section 154? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in sustaining the order of rectification passed by the Assessing Officer on 16.10.2008 when the CIT(A) had already recorded a fining that the appellant had continued its business during the year and no mistake was apparent from record

M/S.PTL ENTERPRISES LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

ITA/185/2013HC Kerala22 Jul 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

For Appellant: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXFor Respondent: M/S.PTL ENTERPRISES LTD

section 154? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in sustaining the order of rectification passed by the Assessing Officer on 16.10.2008 when the CIT(A) had already recorded a fining that the appellant had continued its business during the year and no mistake was apparent from record

M/S PTL ENTERPRISES LTD., vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,

ITA/92/2014HC Kerala22 Jul 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

For Appellant: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXFor Respondent: M/S.PTL ENTERPRISES LTD

section 154? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in sustaining the order of rectification passed by the Assessing Officer on 16.10.2008 when the CIT(A) had already recorded a fining that the appellant had continued its business during the year and no mistake was apparent from record

PTL ENTERPRISES LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/227/2013HC Kerala22 Jul 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

For Appellant: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXFor Respondent: M/S.PTL ENTERPRISES LTD

section 154? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in sustaining the order of rectification passed by the Assessing Officer on 16.10.2008 when the CIT(A) had already recorded a fining that the appellant had continued its business during the year and no mistake was apparent from record

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. PTL ENTERPRISES LIMITED,

ITA/483/2009HC Kerala19 Jul 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

For Appellant: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXFor Respondent: M/S.PREMIER TYRES LTD

Sections 28 to 44 of the Act irrespective of doing business. He prays for answering substantial question Nos. 3 to 5 in favour of revenue and against the assessee. 10. Senior Adv.Mr.Joseph Markose argues that the assessee moved BIFR in 1987 and the case of assessee has been taken up for enquiry in 1991, BIFR found that the assessee could

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PREMIER TYRES LTD.

ITA/758/2009HC Kerala19 Jul 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

For Appellant: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXFor Respondent: M/S.PREMIER TYRES LTD

Sections 28 to 44 of the Act irrespective of doing business. He prays for answering substantial question Nos. 3 to 5 in favour of revenue and against the assessee. 10. Senior Adv.Mr.Joseph Markose argues that the assessee moved BIFR in 1987 and the case of assessee has been taken up for enquiry in 1991, BIFR found that the assessee could

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PREMIER TYRES LTD.

ITA/929/2009HC Kerala19 Jul 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

For Appellant: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXFor Respondent: M/S.PREMIER TYRES LTD

Sections 28 to 44 of the Act irrespective of doing business. He prays for answering substantial question Nos. 3 to 5 in favour of revenue and against the assessee. 10. Senior Adv.Mr.Joseph Markose argues that the assessee moved BIFR in 1987 and the case of assessee has been taken up for enquiry in 1991, BIFR found that the assessee could