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.

421 results for “depreciation”+ Section 43clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,193Delhi1,995Bangalore891Chennai688Kolkata421Ahmedabad402Hyderabad199Jaipur170Raipur139Chandigarh136Pune114Karnataka98Indore87Surat78Amritsar70SC47Cuttack44Visakhapatnam44Lucknow42Rajkot39Cochin39Ranchi32Nagpur26Guwahati23Jodhpur21Telangana21Dehradun15Kerala13Allahabad11Patna11Agra10Panaji9Varanasi6Calcutta5Orissa3Rajasthan1Punjab & Haryana1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1S. B. SINHA MARKANDEY KATJU1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)105Section 14A53Disallowance53Section 80I49Addition to Income49Depreciation42Section 115J41Section 14735Deduction33Section 43B

M/S. EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-4, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 805/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

depreciable asset, was governed by the specific provisions of Section 43(6) read with Section 41(4) of the Act and not by the provisions

GLOSTER LIMITEDN (FORMERLY KNOWN AS GLOSTER JUTE MILLS LIMITED ),KOLKATA vs. CIT-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 828/KOL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2016

Showing 1–20 of 421 · Page 1 of 22

...
29
Section 25024
Section 26323
AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Saumen Adak, FCA & Shri Harish Agarwal,ACAFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Chaube, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 263Section 43(1)

section 43(1) of the Act. In the opinion of CIT the subsidy should have been reduced from the value of plant and machinery for the purpose of allowing depreciation

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

ITA 2111/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43B

section 43B(f) of the Act in the remand proceedings.” 3.1. The Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal raising the following grounds: Assessment Year 2011-12: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by allowing the claim of balance additional depreciation of Rs.1,43

BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

ITA 494/KOL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43B

section 43B(f) of the Act in the remand proceedings.” 3.1. The Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal raising the following grounds: Assessment Year 2011-12: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by allowing the claim of balance additional depreciation of Rs.1,43

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

ITA 2112/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43B

section 43B(f) of the Act in the remand proceedings.” 3.1. The Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal raising the following grounds: Assessment Year 2011-12: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by allowing the claim of balance additional depreciation of Rs.1,43

BIRLA CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

ITA 495/KOL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43B

section 43B(f) of the Act in the remand proceedings.” 3.1. The Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal raising the following grounds: Assessment Year 2011-12: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by allowing the claim of balance additional depreciation of Rs.1,43

DCIT, CIR-10(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S S & IB SERVICES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1401/KOL/2015[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2017AY 2012-2013

Bench: : Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Kalyan Nath,Addl.CIT, ld.Sr.DRFor Respondent: None appeared

depreciation as claimed by the assessee. We find no infirmity in the impugned order of the CIT-A and it is justified. Thus, ground no. 1 raised by the revenue is dismissed. 9. The next effective issue is to be decided as to whether the CIT- A is justified in deleting the impugned addition of Rs.86,28,073/- made

D.C.I.T., CC - 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ELECTROSTEEL CASTING LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 485/KOL/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Dec 2022AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Years: 2016-17 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Electrosteel Casting Ltd. Income-Tax, Central G.K. Tower Vs. Circle-4(4), Kolkata. 19, Camac Street Kolkata -700017 (Pan: Aaace4975B) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 43(1)

depreciable fixed assets, the said subsidy cannot be reduced from the actual cost of the fixed assets under section 43

D.C.I.T CIR - 5,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ESSEL MINING & INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee as well as appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2073/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

depreciation u/s 32 accordingly. 52. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances and following Explanation 10 to Section 43 it is held

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

ITA 2142/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 80I

43(1) for the purpose allowing depreciation. It is further held that if Government subsidy is an incentive not for the specific purpose of meeting a portion of the cost of the assets, though quantified as a percentage of such cost, it does not partake the character of payment intended either directly or indirectly to meet the "actual cost

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

ITA 2143/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 80I

43(1) for the purpose allowing depreciation. It is further held that if Government subsidy is an incentive not for the specific purpose of meeting a portion of the cost of the assets, though quantified as a percentage of such cost, it does not partake the character of payment intended either directly or indirectly to meet the "actual cost

BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT CIR.-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

ITA 496/KOL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 80I

43(1) for the purpose allowing depreciation. It is further held that if Government subsidy is an incentive not for the specific purpose of meeting a portion of the cost of the assets, though quantified as a percentage of such cost, it does not partake the character of payment intended either directly or indirectly to meet the "actual cost

BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

ITA 497/KOL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 80I

43(1) for the purpose allowing depreciation. It is further held that if Government subsidy is an incentive not for the specific purpose of meeting a portion of the cost of the assets, though quantified as a percentage of such cost, it does not partake the character of payment intended either directly or indirectly to meet the "actual cost

D.C.I.T CIR - 1,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S AVERY (INDIA) LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue, is dismissed

ITA 980/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.980/Kol/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2006-2007) Dcit, Circle-1, Kolkata, Vs. M/S Avery (India) Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, 7Th Floor, 28/2, Waterloo Street, P-7, Chowranghiee Square, Kolkata-700069 Kolkata-69 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacca 4694 B .. (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, Jcit Assessee By : Shri Manish Sheth, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 08/03/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/04/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2006-07, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xx, Kolkata, In Appeal No.85/Cit(A)-Xx/Circle-1/2011-12/Kol, Dated 16.01.2013, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 29.12.2009. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Disclosing Total Income Of Rs.3,88,68,115/-.The Return Of Income Was Processed U/S 143(1). Later On, The Assessee’S Case Was Selected For Scrutiny U/S.143(3) Of The Act & The Ao Has Completed The Assessment By Making Addition On Account Of Short Term Capital Gain At Rs.65,81,000/-. The Assessing Officer Observed That The Assessee’S Claim In Respect Of Surrender Of Tenancy Rights Is Not Accepted Because As Per M/S Avery (India) Ltd. Section 43(6) Of The Act, Written Down Value Of A Particular Block Of Assets

For Appellant: Shri Manish Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT
Section 1Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 43Section 43(6)Section 50

43 which says actual cost means the actual cost of the assets to the assessee, reduced that portion of the cost thereof, if any, as has been made directly or indirectly by any other person or authority. The AO observed that the actual cost of asset in the hand of the assessee is only Rs.3,92,069/- which comprises

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

Section 43(6)(c) read with Section 32 of the Act, and therefore Section 50C is not applicable, reliance in this regard is placed on the following- -Decision of the jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of Eveready Industries India Ltd. -vs.- PCIT (2020) 181 ITD 528 (Kolkata Trib.) wherein the Hon'ble ITAT has held that while computing

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

Section 43(6)(c) read with Section 32 of the Act, and therefore Section 50C is not applicable, reliance in this regard is placed on the following- -Decision of the jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of Eveready Industries India Ltd. -vs.- PCIT (2020) 181 ITD 528 (Kolkata Trib.) wherein the Hon'ble ITAT has held that while computing

DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BENGAL BEVERAGES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue, is dismissed

ITA 1218/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Oct 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.1218/Kol/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Cir – 11(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Bengal Beverages Pvt. Ltd. P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069 6, Alipore Park Road, Alipore, Kolkata – 700 027 "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcb5984E (Revenue/Department) .. (Assessee) Assessee By : Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Revenue/Department By : Shri R. P. Nag, Acit (Dr) सुनवाईक"तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 10/08/2017 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 06/10/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2010-11, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Kolkata, In Appeal No. 502/Cit(A)-4/Circle-11/Kol/14- 15, Dated 06.07.2015, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 08.03.2013. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeals: “That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting Disallowance Of Additional Depreciation Of Rs.90,56,200/- U/S 32(1) (Iia) Of The I.T.Act,1961, Relating To Visicooler Machine.”

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. P. Nag, ACIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)

depreciation allowance get attracted when a plant is used for the business of the assessee. The expression "plant" has not been extensively defined and Section 43

ACIT, CEN.CIR.-4(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S ELECTRSTEEL CASTINGS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both, the appeal of the revenue and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2303/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.2303 & 2304/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner M/S. Electrosteel Casting Ltd. Vs. Of Income-Tax, Central (Pan: Aaace4975B) Circle-4(4), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. Nos. 24 & 25/Kol/2020 In Ita Nos.2303 & 2304/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Electrosteel Casting Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Ltd. Income-Tax, Central Circle- 4(4), Kolkata. (Cross Objector) (Respondent) Present For: Department By - Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal & Shri Tushar Dhawal Singh, Cit Assessee By - Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, Ca Date Of Hearing : 17.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.05.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: Both These Appeals By The Revenue & The Cross Objection By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-22 Kolkata Vide Appeal No. 46/Cit(A)-22/2014-15/17-18/Kol & 133/Cit(A)-22/2015-16/18-19/Kol Dated 31.07.2019 For A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Against The Separate Assessment Orders Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Passed By Dcit, Central Circle – 4(4), Kolkata, Dated 29.01.2018 & Acit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata Dated 29.12.2018 Respectively. C.O. Nos. 24 & 25/Kol/2020 Electrosteel Casting Ltd. Ays 2014-15 & 2015-16 2. Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal & Tushar Dhawal Singh, Cit Appeared For The Revenue & Sri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, Ca Appeared For The Assessee.

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)

depreciable fixed assets, the said subsidy cannot be reduced from C.O. Nos. 24 & 25/Kol/2020 Electrosteel Casting Ltd. AYs 2014-15 & 2015-16 the actual cost of the fixed assets under section 43

ACIT, CEN, CIR-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ELECTROSTEEL CASTINGS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both, the appeal of the revenue and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2304/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.2303 & 2304/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner M/S. Electrosteel Casting Ltd. Vs. Of Income-Tax, Central (Pan: Aaace4975B) Circle-4(4), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. Nos. 24 & 25/Kol/2020 In Ita Nos.2303 & 2304/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Electrosteel Casting Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Ltd. Income-Tax, Central Circle- 4(4), Kolkata. (Cross Objector) (Respondent) Present For: Department By - Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal & Shri Tushar Dhawal Singh, Cit Assessee By - Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, Ca Date Of Hearing : 17.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.05.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: Both These Appeals By The Revenue & The Cross Objection By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-22 Kolkata Vide Appeal No. 46/Cit(A)-22/2014-15/17-18/Kol & 133/Cit(A)-22/2015-16/18-19/Kol Dated 31.07.2019 For A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Against The Separate Assessment Orders Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Passed By Dcit, Central Circle – 4(4), Kolkata, Dated 29.01.2018 & Acit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata Dated 29.12.2018 Respectively. C.O. Nos. 24 & 25/Kol/2020 Electrosteel Casting Ltd. Ays 2014-15 & 2015-16 2. Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal & Tushar Dhawal Singh, Cit Appeared For The Revenue & Sri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, Ca Appeared For The Assessee.

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)

depreciable fixed assets, the said subsidy cannot be reduced from C.O. Nos. 24 & 25/Kol/2020 Electrosteel Casting Ltd. AYs 2014-15 & 2015-16 the actual cost of the fixed assets under section 43

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTINGS LIMITED., KOLKATA

ITA 191/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.138 & 139/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.191 & 192/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Vs. M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT-DR & Robin Choudhury, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

depreciation claimed (Rs.3,16,92,148/-) holding the same to be excessive. 3.2.1 Attention in this regard is invited to the provisions of Section 43