Search: depreciation | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

23 results for “depreciation”+ Section 92clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,595 Delhi1,320 Bangalore557 Ahmedabad355 Chennai349 Kolkata248 Chandigarh154 Jaipur145 Hyderabad140 Pune138 Visakhapatnam59 Cochin58 Indore56 Raipur41 Guwahati38 Lucknow32 Cuttack31 Surat30 Amritsar28 Rajkot27 Karnataka24 Nagpur23 Ranchi18 SC17 Telangana17 Allahabad11 Agra9 Kerala8 Jodhpur8 Varanasi4 Patna3 Panaji3 Jabalpur3 Calcutta1 Gauhati1 Orissa1 A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1 MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1 Dehradun1 Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)22 Section 80I18 Section 14712 Section 153A12 Section 26310 Deduction8 Disallowance8 Section 142(1)5 Section 143(2)3 Addition to Income

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

Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO is directed to allow additional depreciation of Rs.1,69,92

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

Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO is directed to allow additional depreciation of Rs.1,69,92

Showing 1–20 of 23 · Page 1 of 2

3

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

Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO is directed to allow additional depreciation of Rs.1,69,92

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

Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO is directed to allow additional depreciation of Rs.1,69,92

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

Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO is directed to allow additional depreciation of Rs.1,69,92

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

Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO is directed to allow additional depreciation of Rs.1,69,92

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

Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO is directed to allow additional depreciation of Rs.1,69,92

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

Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO is directed to allow additional depreciation of Rs.1,69,92

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

Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO is directed to allow additional depreciation of Rs.1,69,92

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

Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO is directed to allow additional depreciation of Rs.1,69,92

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

Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO is directed to allow additional depreciation of Rs.1,69,92

SMT. ANJU SARAF,,NAGPUR vs. A,C.I.T CENT CIR. 2(2), 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 498/NAG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh BanthiaFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 80I

92,17,850. The assessee claimed deduction under section 80IB of the Act for an amount of Rs. 2,49,12,652. The 4 Smt. AanjuSaraf assessment under section 143(3) r/w section 147 of the Act was passed on 31st December 2009, assessing income at Rs. 10,41,30,497. The Tribunal quashed the order passed under section

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

92,17,850. The assessee claimed deduction under section 80IB of the Act for an amount of Rs. 2,49,12,652. The 4 Smt. AanjuSaraf assessment under section 143(3) r/w section 147 of the Act was passed on 31st December 2009, assessing income at Rs. 10,41,30,497. The Tribunal quashed the order passed under section

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

92,17,850. The assessee claimed deduction under section 80IB of the Act for an amount of Rs. 2,49,12,652. The 4 Smt. AanjuSaraf assessment under section 143(3) r/w section 147 of the Act was passed on 31st December 2009, assessing income at Rs. 10,41,30,497. The Tribunal quashed the order passed under section

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

92,17,850. The assessee claimed deduction under section 80IB of the Act for an amount of Rs. 2,49,12,652. The 4 Smt. AanjuSaraf assessment under section 143(3) r/w section 147 of the Act was passed on 31st December 2009, assessing income at Rs. 10,41,30,497. The Tribunal quashed the order passed under section

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

92,17,850. The assessee claimed deduction under section 80IB of the Act for an amount of Rs. 2,49,12,652. The 4 Smt. AanjuSaraf assessment under section 143(3) r/w section 147 of the Act was passed on 31st December 2009, assessing income at Rs. 10,41,30,497. The Tribunal quashed the order passed under section

SMT. ANJU SARAF,,NAGPUR vs. A,C.I.T CENT CIR. 2(2), 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 499/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

92,17,850. The assessee claimed deduction under section 80IB of the Act for an amount of Rs. 2,49,12,652. The 4 Smt. AanjuSaraf assessment under section 143(3) r/w section 147 of the Act was passed on 31st December 2009, assessing income at Rs. 10,41,30,497. The Tribunal quashed the order passed under section

BUCCS LTD. AND NBC AND JV,BULDHANA vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 67/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalkFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Singhai

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 32(1)(ii)

section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) were issued to the assessee. The assessee debited the amortization expenses due to road construction of ` 7,92,63,747. Out of the total revenue, the receipt of ` 12,99,35,303, was from toll collection and road crossing income. As per the clarification

ECONOMIC EXPLOSIVES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (2), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2018–19 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 177/NAG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

depreciation debited to the profit and loss account can be excluded in terms of clause (i) of the Explanation to sub-section (2) of section 115JB of the Act read with proviso considered the object of inserting clauses (i) to (vii) of the Explanation to the said section. The Supreme Court held that the object of clause

ECONOMIC EXPLOSIVES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2018–19 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 242/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

depreciation debited to the profit and loss account can be excluded in terms of clause (i) of the Explanation to sub-section (2) of section 115JB of the Act read with proviso considered the object of inserting clauses (i) to (vii) of the Explanation to the said section. The Supreme Court held that the object of clause