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.

93 results for “depreciation”+ Section 249(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai466Delhi283Kolkata93Chennai85Bangalore82Ahmedabad61Chandigarh47Jaipur42Cochin38Indore25Raipur22Nagpur17Hyderabad13Surat11Pune10Rajkot7Visakhapatnam6Agra4Amritsar4Ranchi4Varanasi4Cuttack3SC3Telangana3Patna3Panaji2Guwahati2Lucknow2Karnataka2Jodhpur1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)69Section 115J60Section 14A54Section 26346Addition to Income44Disallowance41Depreciation40Deduction34Section 25020Section 147

DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S NATIONAL ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1791/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 92C

section 92CA(3) of the Act. At the outset itself, it has been brought to our notice that similar issue arose in the assessee’s own case for the A.Y. 2011-12 and 2012-13 wherein the assessee had charged guarantee commission `@ 0.38% of the outstanding guaranteed amount. However TPO/AO assessed corporate fee @ 3% in place of 0.38%. Aggrieved

SIKA INDIA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 911/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Oct 2019AY 2011-2012

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sika India Pvt. Ltd………………………….……........................................................……………….…......Appellant Commercial Complex-Ii 620, Diamond Harbour Road Kolkata – 700 034 [Pan : Aaecs 1119 F] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(2), Kolkata……..................……….…....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Himanshu Sinha, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Dr. P.K. Srihari, Cit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 31St, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 30Th, 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Showing 1–20 of 93 · Page 1 of 5

18
Section 43B15
Section 14815
Section 143(3)

section 92(3) is that if transacted value income from an international is that if transacted value income from an international transaction is more than its arm's length price income, then, the ALP income should transaction is more than its arm's length price income, then, the ALP income should transaction is more than its arm's length price

M/S. PEERLESS HOSPITEX HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee( in ITA No

ITA 737/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.737 & 738/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years:2009-10 & 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate, Shri S. Dey, CA & Ms. Puja Somani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT
Section 115JSection 154Section 72

section 115JB of the Act, as follows: “As per u/s 143(3) dated 28/12/2011 Book profit u/s 115JB Rs. 2,80,83,898/- Add Provision for doubtful debt Rs. 49,03,249/- Adjusted Book Profit Rs. 3,29,87,147/- Tax on above Rs. 32,98,715/- Hence tax on book profit is more than normal tax, hence tax will

M/S. PEERLESS HOSPITEX HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee( in ITA No

ITA 738/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.737 & 738/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years:2009-10 & 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate, Shri S. Dey, CA & Ms. Puja Somani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT
Section 115JSection 154Section 72

section 115JB of the Act, as follows: “As per u/s 143(3) dated 28/12/2011 Book profit u/s 115JB Rs. 2,80,83,898/- Add Provision for doubtful debt Rs. 49,03,249/- Adjusted Book Profit Rs. 3,29,87,147/- Tax on above Rs. 32,98,715/- Hence tax on book profit is more than normal tax, hence tax will

DCIT, CIR-11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SIKA INDIA PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part and in appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 402/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Oct 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi]

Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

depreciation should not be allowed on the actual cost of such asset; Interest under section 234D of the Act 11. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer based on directions' of DRP erred in levying interest under section 234D of the Act of Rs 389,067; The above grounds

SIKA INDIA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part and in appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 393/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Oct 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi]

Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

depreciation should not be allowed on the actual cost of such asset; Interest under section 234D of the Act 11. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer based on directions' of DRP erred in levying interest under section 234D of the Act of Rs 389,067; The above grounds

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA vs. TURTLE LTD., HOWRAH

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2620/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am]

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 3

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

SASHA ASSOCIATION FOR CRAFT PRODUCERS,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(3), EXEMPTION, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1934/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Kumar, DR
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 249Section 250Section 253Section 3Section 5

3 of Section 249 of the Act, which provides power to the Id. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing of the appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and consideration of this expression has fallen for consideration before the Hon'ble High Courts as well

SASHA ASSOCIATION FOR CRAFT PRODUCERS,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(3), EXEMPTION, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1935/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Kumar, DR
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 249Section 250Section 253Section 3Section 5

3 of Section 249 of the Act, which provides power to the Id. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing of the appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and consideration of this expression has fallen for consideration before the Hon'ble High Courts as well

SASHA ASSOCIATION FOR CRAFT PRODUCERS,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(3), EXEMPTION, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1936/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Kumar, DR
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 249Section 250Section 253Section 3Section 5

3 of Section 249 of the Act, which provides power to the Id. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing of the appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and consideration of this expression has fallen for consideration before the Hon'ble High Courts as well

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. VEDA COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1527/KOL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rabin Chaudhury, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

depreciation of the principal amount invested. However the motive has to be seen , whether the purpose of putting money into equity shares is to be a regular trader whereby one does various activities such as arbitrage, daily speculation, hedging , F&O, call / put option etc or the motive is to invest the money with expectation of capital appreciation and dividend

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. VEDA COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1064/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Nov 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rabin Chaudhury, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

depreciation of the principal amount invested. However the motive has to be seen , whether the purpose of putting money into equity shares is to be a regular trader whereby one does various activities such as arbitrage, daily speculation, hedging , F&O, call / put option etc or the motive is to invest the money with expectation of capital appreciation and dividend

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

depreciation claimed in the return. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the CPC, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) along with an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal together with an affidavit duly sworn by one of working partner explaining reason for delay of 7 years 6 months 18 days

COMMERCIAL HOUSE PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 6(1), KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 601/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 249Section 253Section 270ASection 3Section 5

249 of Income Tax Act, which provides powers to the ld. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction of this expression has fallen for consideration before Hon’ble High Court as well as before the Hon’ble Supreme

BIRENDRANATH SAMANTA,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CIR-2, BURDWAN, BURDWAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 227/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 227/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Birendra Nath Samanta Assistant Commissioner Of Anandapally, Sripally Vs Income Tax, Cirlce-2, Burdwan Burdwan - 713103 [Pan : Akaps8240C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/06/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)”], Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 12/05/2022 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 253 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. In The Condonation Application, The Assessee Stated That An Affidavit & An Application Has Been Filed Wherein It Has Been Submitted That The Impugned Order Was Passed On 12/05/2022 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Ex-Parte. The Said Appellate Order Was Sent Through E- Mail At Debudan1975@Gmail.Com, Which Belonged To Shri Debabrata Dan, A Resident Of Burdwan & Looking After The Income Tax Matters

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 249Section 250Section 253Section 3Section 5

249 of the Act, which provides power to the ld. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing of the appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and consideration of this expression has fallen for consideration before the Hon’ble High Courts as well as before

ACIT, CIR-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ICI INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2355/KOL/2005[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2015AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)

249 ITR 763 (Del) has also held that during the pendency of proceedings for regular assessment and after the issue of notice under section 143(2), the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to invoke his powers under section 154 of the Income-tax Act as the intimation issued under section 143(1)(a) would cease to be operative. The Punjab

DCIT, CIR-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ICI INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1021/KOL/2007[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2015AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)

249 ITR 763 (Del) has also held that during the pendency of proceedings for regular assessment and after the issue of notice under section 143(2), the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to invoke his powers under section 154 of the Income-tax Act as the intimation issued under section 143(1)(a) would cease to be operative. The Punjab

ICI INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 850/KOL/2007[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2015AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)

249 ITR 763 (Del) has also held that during the pendency of proceedings for regular assessment and after the issue of notice under section 143(2), the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to invoke his powers under section 154 of the Income-tax Act as the intimation issued under section 143(1)(a) would cease to be operative. The Punjab

PKC SECURITIES ,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-35(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2399/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 148Section 151

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year): 3 | P a g e PKC Securities A.Y. 2011-12 Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been

DCIT, KOLKATA vs. L & T FINANCE LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 377/KOL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 14ASection 249(3)Section 250

249(3) read with section 250. 5. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention towards CBDT Circular No. 20/2016 dated 26.05.2016. In this Circular, the CBDT has provided that mandatory filing of appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals) electronically would be made applicable from 15.06.2016. In other words, prior to 15.06.2016 if any appeal has been filed