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.

5 results for “depreciation”+ Section 80Jclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai78Delhi33Chennai19Surat12Pune11Rajkot10Bangalore8Kolkata5SC4Telangana2Calcutta1Hyderabad1Nagpur1Jaipur1

Key Topics

Section 115J12Section 143(3)6Section 40A(3)6Section 80P6Section 684Section 80P(2)(a)4Section 80P(2)(d)4Section 142(1)4Addition to Income4

M/S MEDI DRIPS CARRIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-12(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 471/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.471/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-2009) M/S Medi Drips Carries Pvt. Ltd Vs. Ito, Ward-12(4), 8Th Floor, R.No.818, P-7, Chowringhee Square, 4, Synagogue Street, Aayakar Bhawan, Kolkata-700001 Kolkata-700069 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcm 8139 Q .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashish Rustogi, Aca Revenue By : Shri Saurav Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 01/03/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 08/03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2008-09, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-Xii, Kolkata, In Appeal No.490/Xii/12(4)/10-11, Dated 11.11.2013, 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 28.12.2010. 2. The Said Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Time Barred By Four Days. The Assessee Filed The Petition For Condonation Of Delay & Expressed The Reasons Of Delay. After Verification Of Petition We Found That There Was A Reasonable Cause For Four Days Delay In Filing The Appeal. Even Ld Dr Did Not Object To Condone The Delay. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Hearing. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Company Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.09.2008. Subsequently The 2 M/S Medi Drips Carries Pvt. Ltd. Assessee Company Filed Its Revised Return Of Income On 9-12-2008

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Rustogi, ACAFor Respondent: Shri Saurav Kumar, JCIT
Section 115
Unexplained Cash Credit2
Unexplained Investment2
Cash Deposit2
Section 115J
Section 143(3)

80J to carry forward only unabsorbed depreciation allowance under s. 32. It was observed that once the depreciation was allowed in the previous year, it was not open to the assessee to claim reduction with regard thereto for determining whether the total income should be quantified under s. 115J(1). 13. In view of the above decision of the Supreme

GUNJA SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD,PURULIA vs. PCIT,, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 110/KOL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Gunja Samabay Krishi Pcit, Asansol Unnayan Samity Ltd. Vill. Gunja, Golbera, P.S. Vs. Joypur, Dist. Purulia, Pin. 723103 Pan: Aabag 2110 M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M. Goenka, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sudipta Guha, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(i)

depreciation Provision for 1,11,520 Tractor 10,600 Gratuity Provision for Audit 11,000 NPA 3,52,511 Feee Provision for O.D. 3,99,167 Int. Suspence Death Subsidy 1000 (member) Synargice Software 1,59,376 Donation R.K. 2000 Smritimela Building Repairing 22,502 Provision for live 5,09,400 salary staff 150 day Net profit

ACIT, CIR-1, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR vs. SHRI RAKESH KUMAR CHOWDHURY, DURGAPUR

ITA 1810/KOL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 68

80J(6A) clearly lays down that deduction claimed shall not be admissible unless the assessee also furnishes along with the return the audit report in prescribed form duly signed and verified by the accountant. There could indeed be no escape from the conclusion that the requirement of the audit report being filed along with the return of income was mandatory

SHRI RAKESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY,DURGAPUR vs. ACIT, CIR-DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

ITA 422/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 68

80J(6A) clearly lays down that deduction claimed shall not be admissible unless the assessee also furnishes along with the return the audit report in prescribed form duly signed and verified by the accountant. There could indeed be no escape from the conclusion that the requirement of the audit report being filed along with the return of income was mandatory

JK AGRIGENETICS LIMITED(EARLIER KNOWN AS FLORENCE ALUMINA LTD.),KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2218/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

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

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 32(1)(iia)

depreciation of Rs.15,78,396/- made u/s. 32(1)(iia) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) who was pleased to dismiss the same. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee is before us. 4. We have heard rival submissions and gone through