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.

41 results for “depreciation”+ Section 28clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,894Delhi2,612Bangalore1,121Chennai892Ahmedabad712Kolkata561Hyderabad327Pune327Jaipur304Chandigarh220Karnataka175Raipur158Visakhapatnam128Indore126Cuttack126Surat121Amritsar107Cochin103Rajkot63Lucknow60SC52Ranchi46Nagpur41Guwahati38Jodhpur34Telangana33Kerala19Dehradun18Agra17Patna17Allahabad14Panaji8Jabalpur8Calcutta7Varanasi4Punjab & Haryana4Rajasthan2D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Tripura1Gauhati1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Orissa1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)35Section 1125Section 26319Section 80I18Addition to Income18Section 14717Deduction17Disallowance15Section 153A12Section 80P

ASSTT. C.I.T, CENTRAL CIR, -2(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S GUPTA GLOBAL RESOURCES LTD(EAELIER KNOWN AS GUPTA COALFIELDS & WASHHERIES LTD), NAGPUR

In the result, cross objections No

ITA 483/NAG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

28-3- 2006 which was passed in pursuance to the proceedings undertaken after the search u/s.132 on 24-12-2003. This order was also subject to revision proceedings u/s.263 and in such proceedings also, I find that the claim of depreciation was not disputed. Similarly, the claim of depreciation has been allowed in order u/s.143(3) for the Asstt. Year

ASSTT. C.I.T, CENTRAL CIR, -2(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S GUPTA GLOBAL RESOURCES LTD(EAELIER KNOWN AS GUPTA COALFIELDS & WASHHERIES LTD), NAGPUR

In the result, cross objections No

ITA 484/NAG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

28-3- 2006 which was passed in pursuance to the proceedings undertaken after the search u/s.132 on 24-12-2003. This order was also subject to revision proceedings u/s.263 and in such proceedings also, I find that the claim of depreciation was not disputed. Similarly, the claim of depreciation has been allowed in order u/s.143(3) for the Asstt. Year

Showing 1–20 of 41 · Page 1 of 3

10
Depreciation10
Section 688

ASSTT. C.I.T, CENTRAL CIR, -2(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S GUPTA COAL(INDIA) LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, cross objections No

ITA 481/NAG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

28-3- 2006 which was passed in pursuance to the proceedings undertaken after the search u/s.132 on 24-12-2003. This order was also subject to revision proceedings u/s.263 and in such proceedings also, I find that the claim of depreciation was not disputed. Similarly, the claim of depreciation has been allowed in order u/s.143(3) for the Asstt. Year

ASSTT. C.I.T, CENTRAL CIR, -2(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S GUPTA COAL(INDIA) LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, cross objections No

ITA 480/NAG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

28-3- 2006 which was passed in pursuance to the proceedings undertaken after the search u/s.132 on 24-12-2003. This order was also subject to revision proceedings u/s.263 and in such proceedings also, I find that the claim of depreciation was not disputed. Similarly, the claim of depreciation has been allowed in order u/s.143(3) for the Asstt. Year

ASSTT. C.I.T, CENTRAL CIR, -2(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S GUPTA GLOBAL RESOURCES LTD(EAELIER KNOWN AS GUPTA COALFIELDS & WASHHERIES LTD), NAGPUR

In the result, cross objections No

ITA 485/NAG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

28-3- 2006 which was passed in pursuance to the proceedings undertaken after the search u/s.132 on 24-12-2003. This order was also subject to revision proceedings u/s.263 and in such proceedings also, I find that the claim of depreciation was not disputed. Similarly, the claim of depreciation has been allowed in order u/s.143(3) for the Asstt. Year

ASSTT. C.I.T, CENTRAL CIR, -2(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S GUPTA COAL(INDIA) LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, cross objections No

ITA 479/NAG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

28-3- 2006 which was passed in pursuance to the proceedings undertaken after the search u/s.132 on 24-12-2003. This order was also subject to revision proceedings u/s.263 and in such proceedings also, I find that the claim of depreciation was not disputed. Similarly, the claim of depreciation has been allowed in order u/s.143(3) for the Asstt. Year

ASSTT. C.I.T, CENTRAL CIR, -2(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S GUPTA GLOBAL RESOURCES LTD(EAELIER KNOWN AS GUPTA COALFIELDS 7 WASHHERIES LTD), NAGPUR

In the result, cross objections No

ITA 482/NAG/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Oct 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

28-3- 2006 which was passed in pursuance to the proceedings undertaken after the search u/s.132 on 24-12-2003. This order was also subject to revision proceedings u/s.263 and in such proceedings also, I find that the claim of depreciation was not disputed. Similarly, the claim of depreciation has been allowed in order u/s.143(3) for the Asstt. Year

ASTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIR 2(3) R, NAGPUR vs. M GUPTA COALFIELDS & WASHERIES LTD., NAGPUR

In the result, cross objections No

ITA 414/NAG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

28-3- 2006 which was passed in pursuance to the proceedings undertaken after the search u/s.132 on 24-12-2003. This order was also subject to revision proceedings u/s.263 and in such proceedings also, I find that the claim of depreciation was not disputed. Similarly, the claim of depreciation has been allowed in order u/s.143(3) for the Asstt. Year

ASSTT. C.I.T, CENTRAL CIR, -2(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S GUPTA COAL(INDIA) LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, cross objections No

ITA 477/NAG/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Oct 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

28-3- 2006 which was passed in pursuance to the proceedings undertaken after the search u/s.132 on 24-12-2003. This order was also subject to revision proceedings u/s.263 and in such proceedings also, I find that the claim of depreciation was not disputed. Similarly, the claim of depreciation has been allowed in order u/s.143(3) for the Asstt. Year

ASSTT.C,I,.T, CENTRAL CIR, -2(3), NAGPUR vs. M/S GUPTA COALFIELDS & WASHERIES LTD., NAGPUR

In the result, cross objections No

ITA 429/NAG/2014[2005-06]Status: FixedITAT Nagpur22 Oct 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

28-3- 2006 which was passed in pursuance to the proceedings undertaken after the search u/s.132 on 24-12-2003. This order was also subject to revision proceedings u/s.263 and in such proceedings also, I find that the claim of depreciation was not disputed. Similarly, the claim of depreciation has been allowed in order u/s.143(3) for the Asstt. Year

ASSTT. C.I.T, CENTRAL CIR, -2(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S GUPTA COAL(INDIA) LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, cross objections No

ITA 478/NAG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

28-3- 2006 which was passed in pursuance to the proceedings undertaken after the search u/s.132 on 24-12-2003. This order was also subject to revision proceedings u/s.263 and in such proceedings also, I find that the claim of depreciation was not disputed. Similarly, the claim of depreciation has been allowed in order u/s.143(3) for the Asstt. Year

PREMJEET SINGH,DABHA NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(3), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 521/NAG/2024[AY 2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 10Section 10(14)Section 10(14)(i)Section 10(14)(ii)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 270A

depreciation and related costs for commuting to the office which was not paid separately by the company. The company has paid us for visiting the clients but not for commuting to office. We agree with the proposed adjustment and accept the same for the best interest of the department. However, we hereby request to waive any penalty u/s 270A since

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. AAKAR HOTELS, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 47/NAG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon'Ble & Shri K.M. Roy, Hon'Ble Accountant, Member

Section 147Section 148

depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year and for which a prior notice under Section 148 would be required to be issued. Section 147 does not contemplate an eventuality which Section 153A or Section 153C contemplates, the basis of which is inter alia a search action under Section 132 being resorted as noted hereinabove. Thus

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL-CIRCLE-2 (1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. JAYMAHAKALI SHIKSHAN SANSTHA, WARDHA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 337/NAG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 164(2)Section 69A

section 11(6) of the Act disallowed depreciation by holding that the assessee trust had already claimed the purchase of asset as an application of income. 28

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL-CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. JAYMAHAKALI SHIKSHAN SANSTHA, WARDHA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 336/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 164(2)Section 69A

section 11(6) of the Act disallowed depreciation by holding that the assessee trust had already claimed the purchase of asset as an application of income. 28

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL-CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. JAYMAHAKALI SHIKSHAN SANSTHA, WARDHA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 335/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 164(2)Section 69A

section 11(6) of the Act disallowed depreciation by holding that the assessee trust had already claimed the purchase of asset as an application of income. 28

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU A. SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 512/NAG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh BanthiaFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 80I

Section 32(l)(iia) of the Act which is not permissible. 13. Therefore, question no.(I) is answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the respondent-assessee and against the appellant- Revenue.” 20. Therefore, relying upon the order of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and in view of the observations of the learned CIT(A), the learned Counsel

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU A. SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 511/NAG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh BanthiaFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 80I

Section 32(l)(iia) of the Act which is not permissible. 13. Therefore, question no.(I) is answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the respondent-assessee and against the appellant- Revenue.” 20. Therefore, relying upon the order of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and in view of the observations of the learned CIT(A), the learned Counsel

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 436/NAG/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Jul 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh BanthiaFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 80I

Section 32(l)(iia) of the Act which is not permissible. 13. Therefore, question no.(I) is answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the respondent-assessee and against the appellant- Revenue.” 20. Therefore, relying upon the order of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and in view of the observations of the learned CIT(A), the learned Counsel

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 438/NAG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh BanthiaFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 80I

Section 32(l)(iia) of the Act which is not permissible. 13. Therefore, question no.(I) is answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the respondent-assessee and against the appellant- Revenue.” 20. Therefore, relying upon the order of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and in view of the observations of the learned CIT(A), the learned Counsel