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.

88 results for “depreciation”+ Natural Justiceclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi898Mumbai838Bangalore435Chennai286Jaipur148Ahmedabad134Raipur128Hyderabad126Kolkata88Chandigarh77Pune75Amritsar71Indore60Surat50Lucknow42Rajkot33Cochin28Visakhapatnam23SC23Cuttack21Jodhpur14Nagpur11Guwahati9Panaji9Allahabad7Patna6Ranchi6Agra6Dehradun4Jabalpur3Varanasi1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)68Section 26363Section 25045Disallowance38Addition to Income38Depreciation36Deduction27Section 115J25Limitation/Time-bar23Natural Justice

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

ITA 372/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sriram Sashdari, ARFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR
Section 250Section 43(6)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 928

natural justice as no justice can be said to have been dispensed with, if the reasons for Tata Consumer Products Ltd. {erstwhile Tata Global Beverages Ltd.} AYs: 2014-15 & 2015-16 the decisions reached are not mentioned and apparent in the order passed. Fur- ther, it is only a speaking order that can indicate whether the decision maker has acted

Showing 1–20 of 88 · Page 1 of 5

18
Section 14A16
Section 143(2)14

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

ITA 373/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sriram Sashdari, ARFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR
Section 250Section 43(6)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 928

natural justice as no justice can be said to have been dispensed with, if the reasons for Tata Consumer Products Ltd. {erstwhile Tata Global Beverages Ltd.} AYs: 2014-15 & 2015-16 the decisions reached are not mentioned and apparent in the order passed. Fur- ther, it is only a speaking order that can indicate whether the decision maker has acted

EIH LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NFAC, DELHI, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 498/KOL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 92C

natural justice. 7. FOR THAT, without prejudice to the above, the DRP erred in confirming the application of Safe Harbour Rules by the Transfer Pricing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the TPO"), for which option is available to the assessee only. 8. FOR THAT, without prejudice to the above, the DRP erred in arbitrarily assuming the guarantee commission

EIH LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 181/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 92C

natural justice. 7. FOR THAT, without prejudice to the above, the DRP erred in confirming the application of Safe Harbour Rules by the Transfer Pricing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the TPO"), for which option is available to the assessee only. 8. FOR THAT, without prejudice to the above, the DRP erred in arbitrarily assuming the guarantee commission

M/S B.N. DUTTA,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DCIT, CIR. 2, DURGAPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 705/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.705/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S B. N. Dutta ….…………………………………………………..………….……Appellant Head Office: 518, G Road, Sonari West Layout, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand – 831011. [Pan: Aadfb0648J] Vs. Dcit, Circle-2, Durgapur……..……....….….. ……………….........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri D. Khasnobis, Ca & None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri H. Robindro Singh, Addl. Cit - Dr & None Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 05, 2025 & December 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 17, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 13.02.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Indore [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Partnership Firm & Engaged In The Business Of Civil Construction & Maintenance Of Civil Structures Inside Stell Plants. For The Assessment Year 2011-12, The Assessee Filed Its Return On 30.09.2011 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.36,58,080/- & Total Tax & Cess Liability Of Rs.11,30,347/- Was Discharged In Full Resulting In A Refund Of Rs.12,520/-. The Return Of The Assessee Was Processed By The Cpc U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 27.01.2012. The Assessee Did Not Receive Any Information From The Cpc Either Directly By Way Of Service Of Physical Copy Of The Same Or From The Then Authorised Representative Namely Mr. S. N. Gupta. Due To Non-Receipt Of

Section 143(1)Section 249(3)Section 250

natural justice, the appeals of the assessee I.T.A. No.705/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s B. N. Dutta need to be restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) so that the assessee could be heard on merit and appeals could be decided after taking into account the merits of the issues. Accordingly we restore these appeals to the file

DCIT, CIRCLE - 12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. AMRI HOSPITALS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 977/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37Section 37(1)

depreciation of Rs. 38,98,013/-, disallowance of advance written off of Rs. 4,41,000/-, treating of house property income as income from other sources and minor other additions. Loss assessed at Rs. 54,49,56,416/-. Page 2 of 22 I.T.A. No.: 977/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 AMRI Hospitals Ltd. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before

AMAN TANNERY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 29(1),, KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1274/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 250

natural justice by Ld.CIT(A). Since the said evidence is available with the assessee as submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, I am of the view that the assessee deserves an opportunity to support and substantiate his claim for depreciation

INFINITY INFOTECH PARKS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-1, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 32/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am ]

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 43(6)Section 50Section 72

natural justice; or (iv) if the order is passed by the Assessing Officer without application of mind; (v) if the AO has not investigated the issue before him;[ because AO has to discharge dual role of an investigator as well as that of an adjudicator ]then in aforesaid any event the order passed by the Assessing Officer can be termed

M/S POONAWALLA FINCOUP LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-1, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 218/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 218/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Poonawalla Fincorp Limited Pcit-1, Kolkata Development House Vs 4Th Floor 24, Park Street Kolkata - 700016 Pan : Aabcm9445K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "त् यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, Ca Revenue By : Shri Amitava Bhattacharya, Cit (D/R) सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/08/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/09/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Ld. Pr. Cit – Kolkata-1 Vide Order Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2021-22/1042104843(1), Dt. 30/03/2022, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, Hereinafter Referred To As The Act.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. PujaFor Respondent: Shri Amitava Bhattacharya, CIT (D/R)
Section 143(3)Section 263

natural justice; or (iv) if the order is passed by the Assessing Officer without application of mind; (v) if the AO has not investigated the issue before him; [because AO has to discharge dual role of an investigator as well as that of an adjudicator] then in aforesaid any of the events, the order passed

SAPOI TEA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-4(4) , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 561/KOL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 154Section 234ASection 250Section 264

natural justice. 2 AY: 2010-11 Sapoi Tea Limited 3. For that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Kolkata disallowing the benefit of brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation

JCIT (OSD), CIR- 11(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. GOBIND SUGAR MILLS LTD. , KOLKATA

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

ITA 235/KOL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Goel, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT D/R
Section 115BSection 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 32(1)(iia)

depreciation on the same is allowable but this claim is not supported by any tangible material and prescribed manner provided in the Act. We, therefore, in view of the principle of natural justice

DEEPAK BAJAJ,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 40(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 721/KOL/2022[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2009-10 Deepak Bajaj Ito, Ward-40(1), Kolkata 77, S.P. Mukherjee Road, Gd. Vs. Floor, Kalighat, Kolkata- 700026. Pan: Aeepb 5525 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Dilip Chatterjee, Advocate Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.04.2023 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Cit(A)- 12, Kolkata Vide Order No. 40/Cit(A)-12/Kol/Ward-40(1)/2014-15 Dated 09.06.2016 Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(1)/147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Chatterjee, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 40

natural justice, 2 Deepak Bajaj A.Y. 2009-10 hence liable to be set aside. (relied on the order of ITAT B Bench Kol, dated 31st March 2022 in ITA No- 75/Kol/2020) iii. For that and in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A)-12 Kol should have considered Gr no-l before concluding

OUTOTEC (FINLAND) OY (NOW MERGED WITH "METSO MINERALS OY" AND THE MERGED ENTITY HAS BEEN RENAMED TO METSO OUTOTEC FINLAND OY),HARYANA vs. ACIT(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result,both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 351/KOL/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri K. M. Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. HukughaSema, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 270ASection 271A

justice. c. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. AO/DRP erred in not appreciating the contention that income earned from testing and other services performed entirely in Finland would not be taxable in India in view of the provisions of Article 12 of the India-Finland DTAA. d. That on the facts

OUTOTEC(FINLAND) OY (NOW MERGED WITH "METSO MINERALS OY" AND THE MERGED ENTITY HAS BEEN RENAMED TO METSO OUTOTEC FINLAND OY),GURUGRAM vs. DCIT(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result,both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 350/KOL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri K. M. Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. HukughaSema, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 270ASection 271A

justice. c. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. AO/DRP erred in not appreciating the contention that income earned from testing and other services performed entirely in Finland would not be taxable in India in view of the provisions of Article 12 of the India-Finland DTAA. d. That on the facts

METSIL EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, CEN. -2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 929/KOL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 79

depreciation of Rs. 8,42,47,107/- there is no income remaining on which tax is payable by the assessee. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the order of the PCIT u/s 263 of the Act is passed in violation of the principle of natural justice

BCT INFRASTRUCTURE LLP,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-28(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 571/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(3)Section 250

justice hence is bad in law and be quashed. 2. For that the in the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals erred in upholding the disallowance of motor car expenses of Rs.3,33,773 on account of personal use of car by the partner. The entire disallowance on personal use is not justified

SURESH KUMAR PODDAR,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 63(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1542/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Mar 2026AY 2011-2012

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

Section 111ASection 132Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 250o

natural justice, by accepting the actions of the Ld. A.O. of not providing the information received from the investigation wing and by not providing an opportunity to cross-examine the persons whose statement were relied upon at the time of making the additions. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, erred in law as well as in facts

TIRUPATI MARBLES,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 44(2),, KOLKATA

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

ITA 2126/KOL/2025[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Dec 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263

depreciation and finally made an addition of Rs.1,09,00,000/- in respect of unexplained investments. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal has been dismissed by passing an ex parte order as there was no compliance on behalf of the assessee on different dates fixed

ACIT, CIR-14(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ULTRATECH NATHDWARA CEMENT LTD.(KNOWN AS M/S BINANI CEMENT LTD.), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 611/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 May 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 154Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 801ASection 92C

natural justice. Reliance in this respect is placed in the case of Andamann Timber Industries vs CCE-281 CTR 241 (SC). 2.3 The CIT(A) further erred in not appreciating that Mr. Vikrant Kayan had nowhere stated his involvement in the purchases made by the appellant from Sri Maa Sarda Fabrication Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, his statement is not relevant

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ULTRATECH NATHDWARA CEMENT LTD. (KNOWN AS M/S. BINANI CEMENT LTD.), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 470/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 154Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 801ASection 92C

natural justice. Reliance in this respect is placed in the case of Andamann Timber Industries vs CCE-281 CTR 241 (SC). 2.3 The CIT(A) further erred in not appreciating that Mr. Vikrant Kayan had nowhere stated his involvement in the purchases made by the appellant from Sri Maa Sarda Fabrication Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, his statement is not relevant