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.

3 results for “depreciation”+ Section 245Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi7Visakhapatnam5Jaipur4Mumbai3Karnataka1Chennai1Bangalore1SC1

Key Topics

Section 10B3Section 143(3)2Section 372Section 352Deduction2Disallowance2Addition to Income2

USV P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT-C-5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee and appeal filed by the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 891/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Blem/S. Usv Private Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 5(2) Arvind Vitthal Gandhi Chowk 1908, 19Th Floor Govandi (East), Mumbai- 400088 Air India Building Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 Pan: Aaacu1366N (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle- 5(2) V. M/S. Usv Private Limited 1908, 19Th Floor Arvind Vitthal Gandhi Chowk Air India Building, Nariman Point Govandi (East), Mumbai- 400088 Mumbai- 400021 Pan: Aaacu1366N

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 245CSection 35Section 37Section 37(1)

245C of the Act requesting for settlement of its pending cases which petition has been disposed off. Page No. | 2 ITA NO. 891 & 2573/MUM/2021 (A.Y: 2018-19) M/s. USV Private Limited 3. In relation to the impugned A.Y. 2018-2019, the Assessee filed its original Return of Income for AY 2018-19 on 29.11.2018, declaring a total income

ADDL CIT 2(1), MUMBAI vs. GTL LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 5419/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 10BSection 143(1)

depreciation Can be apportioned over non STP units and not on the STP units as these assets did not form part of the fixed assets of the STP Units. The action of the AO in apportioning even the deprecation cost over the STP Units is therefore absolutely unwarranted. In the light of the above, it is apparent that apportioning

METAL TUBE AND ROLLING MILSS,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 24(2)(1), MIUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals no

ITA 3115/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69ASection 69C

sections, etc. Assessee firm e-filed its return of income for A.Y. 2010-11 on 27.09.2010, declaring total income at Rs. Nil. The return was processed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee. After considering