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.

10 results for “depreciation”+ Natural Justiceclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,770Mumbai1,464Bangalore640Chennai451Ahmedabad402Kolkata301Jaipur201Hyderabad194Pune174Karnataka157Raipur140Chandigarh112Surat103Indore88Cuttack88Amritsar87Cochin79Visakhapatnam66Lucknow59Telangana52Rajkot42Guwahati34Nagpur30SC23Dehradun21Jodhpur21Kerala20Agra17Allahabad17Calcutta14Ranchi13Panaji11Patna10Punjab & Haryana9Rajasthan5Jabalpur4Orissa4Varanasi3Gauhati2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 26317Section 143(3)11Section 142(1)6Section 1476Depreciation6Addition to Income5Section 143(2)4Natural Justice4Section 143(1)3Section 148

M/S MANISH FINLEASE (P) LTD,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), PATNA

ITA 25/PAT/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-2011 Manish Finlease Pvt Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 2(1), Patna Chandi House Exhibition Road, Patna Pan/Gir No.Aaccm 6252 B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K.Rastogi & Rakesh Kumar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Indrajeet Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/06/ 2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/08/ 2019 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Patna Dated 27.9.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 51 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons For Not Filing The Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. After Hearing The Submissions Of The Parties, We Are Satisfied That The Assessee Had A Bonafide Reason For Not Filing The Appeal In Time. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Rastogi & Rakesh Kumar, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Indrajeet Singh, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(1)Section 68
3
Section 145(3)3
Revision u/s 2633

justice. P a g e 3 | 71 Assessment Year : 2010 -2011 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Pvt Ltd Company and filed return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act on 11.10.2010. subsequently, the information was received that the bank account of the assessee has been credited by Rs.55 lakhs from the three companies

ARUN KUMAR GUPTA,SIWAN vs. DC/AC, CIRCLE-2, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 30/PAT/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Patna10 Oct 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(2)

depreciation made by the ld. Assessing Officer. 7. As far as the other grounds are concerned, these are peripheral in nature, namely in Ground No. 1, the assessee has submitted that ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte. In Ground No. 2, he submitted that ld. CIT(Appeals) failed to appreciate the hardship caused by COVID

ADITYA FUTURISTIC TRADING PVT. LTD.,PATNA vs. CIT-I, PATNA, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 184/PAT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Aditya Futuristic Trading Cit-1, Patna Pvt. Ltd. C/O. Nirmal & Associates, Chartered Accountants, Nepali Vs. Kothi, Opp. Gasoline Petrol Pump. Boring Road, Patna – 800001. [Pan: Aaeca 9085 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Nishant Maitin, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Rinku Singh, Cit/Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Pcit-1, Patna Dated 23.03.2018 U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “I. For That The Grounds Hereto Are Without Prejudice To Each Other. Ii. For That The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax-1, Patna Is Bad Both In Law & On Facts. Iii. For That The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax-1, Patna Is Based On Presumption, Surmise & Conjectures. Iv. For That The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax-1, Patna Passed The Order Ignoring The Fact That All The Points Which Were Raised In The Notice Had Duly Been Examined By The Ld. Ao.

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Maitin, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT/DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

depreciation chart and to determine the issue of deductibility of the same against the Gross Revenue Receipt (GRP). The failure of the Assessing Officer to conduct necessary enquiry and investigation to determine the nature of loss on capital assets 4 M/s. Aditya Futuristic Trading Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2013-14 as well as the amount being deductible against Gross Receipt

ROHIT KUMAR JHUNJHUNWALA,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-5(1), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 73/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 73/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Rohit Kumar Jhunjhunwala,……………….…Appellant Keshev Rai Lane Chowk, Patna City-800008, Bihar [Pan:Aaqpj7024F] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….....Respondent Ward-5(1), Patna Appearances By: Shri Alok Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144

depreciation, ld. Assessing Officer left no other option, but to complete the time barring scrutiny assessment under section 144 of the Income Tax Act by disallowing the claim of Rs.19,13,907/- claimed by the assessee and assessed income of the assessee at Rs.23,79,307/-. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals

MASUDAN TANTI,BHAGALPUR vs. CIT, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 29/PAT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri R. N. Bedi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Lalita Kumari, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44

Natural Justice.” 6 MasudanTanti, AY: 2013-14 6. The bank statement was also available before the Ld. AO which shows frequent cash deposit and withdrawal and while the Ld. AO has not taken into account the withdrawals, the entire deposits have been added to the income of the assessee. 7. As regards the applicability of section 44AD, the same applies

SRIRAM ENTERPRISES,PATNA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 76/PAT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 76/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Sriram Enterprises,………………………..........Appellant C/O. Nirmal & Associates, Nepali Kothi, Opposite Gasoline Petrol Pump, Boring Road, Patna-800001 [Pan:Aarfs8853J] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Patna,…………………………………..……………..Respondent, Bihar-800001 Appearances By: Shri Nishant Maitin, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Md. A.H. Chowdhary, Cit (D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 5Th March, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: May 8Th, 2024 O R D E R

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 263

justice or without application of mind. The phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the revenue’ has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, for example, when

NORTH BIHAR POWER DISTRUBUTION CO. LTD,PATNA vs. PR. CIT-1, PATNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 224/PAT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Kumar,FCAFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, Addl. CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 263(2)

depreciation as per Companies Act and as per IT Act. Further no evidence or proof has been adduced by the assessee as to why reserve and amortization of grant of Rs.1027353413/- has not been deducted while calculating the deduction as per Income Tax Act. Under the circumstances, the assessee's argument on the above issue is not tenable

RADHA GOVIND PUBLIC WELFARE SOCIETY,RAMGARH vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), PATNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 66/PAT/2018[15-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna23 Feb 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, Addl. CIT, DR
Section 12ASection 142Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

depreciation on the acquisition of fixed assets which has been allowed as application of income, Ld. CIT has not given any adverse comment or finding in the impugned order. 4 Radha Govind Public Welfare Society AY 2015-16 4.4. It is also submitted that though Ld. CIT has issued show cause notice u/s. 263 of the Act by raising twelve

THE MUZAFFARPUR CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,MUZAFFARPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 87/PAT/2019[12/03/2019]Status: HeardITAT Patna05 Jul 2022

Bench: Shri Mainsh Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 139Section 139(3)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(2)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 72

Natural Justice and as such is not sustainable. 4. For that the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the I.T. Act is illegal and is not in accordance with provisions of law because the return was filed in response to notice u/s 142(1) and all the facts were before the ld. ACIT. Under the circumstances of re- assessment cannot

M/S KUMAR CONSTRUCTION,CHAPRA vs. DCIT, CICLE-2, MUZAFFAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 200/PAT/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Patna21 Sept 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleita Nos.200/Pat/2014 Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Kumar Construction Dcit, Circle-2, Muzaffarpur P.O. Dumri Adda, P.S. Vs. Doriganj, Dist. Chapra. Pan: Aajfm 7295 G (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Smt. Archana Sharma, Ca Respondent By : Shri Rupesh Agrawal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: The Captioned Appeals Preferred By The Assessee For The A.Y. 2005-06 Is Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Passed By Osd, Cit(A) Dated 26.06.2014. The Assessee Has Taken The Following Revised Ground Of Appeal For A.Y. 2005-06 As Under: “I. The Ld. Assessing Officer Has Assessed Profit @ 8% Of Total Gross Receipts Amount To Rs. 2,40,85,620/- Amounting To Rs. 19,26,850/- & Added Back To Assessee’S Income While Computation Of Tax. Ii. Capital Introduced By 6 Partner’S Amounting To Rs. 12,20,000/- Has Been Outrightly Rejected By Ao & Added Back To Assessees Income While Computation Of Tax. Iii. The Respondent Have Rejected The Books Of Accounts Invoking The Provision Of Section 145(3) & Rejecting The Books Of Accounts Regularly Maintained & Holding That The Audited Books Of Accounts Were Not Absolutely Reliable. So, We Pray For Consider The Revised Grounds Stated Above & Grant Relief For Assessee’S Income @ 6% Of The Total Receipts Of Rs. 2,40,85,620/-.”

For Appellant: Smt. Archana Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rupesh Agrawal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

depreciation claimed in the profit and loss accounts. However, doing so, he allowed salary and interest to partners amounting to Rs. 3,97,897/- therefrom. Since the assessee firm was reconstituted and seven partners had introduced Rs. 17,86,586/- towards their capital and out of seven partners did not file any documentary proof to explain the source of capital