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.

17 results for “depreciation”+ Section 20clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,588Delhi3,211Bangalore1,335Chennai1,159Ahmedabad820Kolkata752Pune423Hyderabad412Jaipur408Chandigarh288Raipur174Surat164Visakhapatnam161Indore158Cochin153Cuttack151Karnataka128Amritsar112Rajkot83Lucknow68SC57Jodhpur53Ranchi52Guwahati51Nagpur50Telangana39Agra24Kerala21Dehradun20Panaji17Patna17Allahabad14Calcutta10Varanasi8Jabalpur5Rajasthan5Punjab & Haryana5Gauhati2MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1Tripura1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 44A36Section 271A18Section 80I14Section 26313Section 143(3)12Depreciation9Section 143(2)8Section 1478Deduction8Section 40

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
7
Penalty7
Addition to Income7

depreciation to be allowed under sections 30 and 32. The Assessing Officer determined the taxable income making additions and disallowances. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 148 and reopened the assessment P a g e 10 | 71 Assessment Year : 2010 -2011 under section 147 on the basis of under assessment. The assessee objected to the reopening

PUNRASAR JUTE PARK LIMITED,PURNEA vs. CIT, PURNEA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 432/PAT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna05 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

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

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 142(2)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

20, 2024 Date of pronouncing the order : September 05, 2024 O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member:- The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), 1 Punrasar Jute Park Limited National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 17th April, 2024 passed for Assessment Year

NEHA VERMA ,PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee in ITA No

ITA 237/PAT/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Patna13 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Section 20Section 271ASection 40Section 44ASection 5

20 (w.e.f. 1.4.2011).] (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in sections 28 to 43-C, in the case of an eligible assessee engaged in an eligible business, a sum equal to eight per cent. of the total turnover or gross receipts of the assessee in the previous year on account of such business or, as the case

NEHA VERMA,PATNA vs. ACIT CENTAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee in ITA No

ITA 233/PAT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna13 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Section 20Section 271ASection 40Section 44ASection 5

20 (w.e.f. 1.4.2011).] (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in sections 28 to 43-C, in the case of an eligible assessee engaged in an eligible business, a sum equal to eight per cent. of the total turnover or gross receipts of the assessee in the previous year on account of such business or, as the case

NEHA VERMA,PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN

In the result, all the appeals of assessee in ITA No

ITA 234/PAT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna13 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Section 20Section 271ASection 40Section 44ASection 5

20 (w.e.f. 1.4.2011).] (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in sections 28 to 43-C, in the case of an eligible assessee engaged in an eligible business, a sum equal to eight per cent. of the total turnover or gross receipts of the assessee in the previous year on account of such business or, as the case

NEHA VERMA,PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee in ITA No

ITA 235/PAT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna13 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Section 20Section 271ASection 40Section 44ASection 5

20 (w.e.f. 1.4.2011).] (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in sections 28 to 43-C, in the case of an eligible assessee engaged in an eligible business, a sum equal to eight per cent. of the total turnover or gross receipts of the assessee in the previous year on account of such business or, as the case

NEHA VERMA,PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee in ITA No

ITA 236/PAT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna13 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Section 20Section 271ASection 40Section 44ASection 5

20 (w.e.f. 1.4.2011).] (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in sections 28 to 43-C, in the case of an eligible assessee engaged in an eligible business, a sum equal to eight per cent. of the total turnover or gross receipts of the assessee in the previous year on account of such business or, as the case

NEHA VERMA,PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN

In the result, all the appeals of assessee in ITA No

ITA 232/PAT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna13 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Section 20Section 271ASection 40Section 44ASection 5

20 (w.e.f. 1.4.2011).] (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in sections 28 to 43-C, in the case of an eligible assessee engaged in an eligible business, a sum equal to eight per cent. of the total turnover or gross receipts of the assessee in the previous year on account of such business or, as the case

S.RANJAN & BROTHERS,MUZAFFARPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 71/PAT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna14 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2017-18 S. Ranjan & Brothers Dcit, Circle-1, Muzaffarpur Puja Bazar, Motijheel, Muzaffarpur- Vs 842001. Pan: Aaofs 8056 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, Jcit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.05.2024 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.08.2021 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’].

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, JCIT, DR
Section 143(2)Section 40A(3)

depreciation on assets purchase out of cash. Therefore, considering the various aspects of the case and documents furnished by the assessee we find that the alleged payments were made not exceeding of Rs. 4 S. Ranjan & Brothers A.Y. 2017-18 20,000/- in a particular day. Therefore, section

I.T.O. vs. M/S KUMAR CONSTRUCLTION,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 10/PAT/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Patna17 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(b)Section 40A(3)

20,000/- through bearer cheques, definitely comes within the purview of Sec. 40A(3) read with Rule 6DD. Therefore, total such payments amounting to Rs. 1,44,87,045/- is being disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee. 5 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 M/s. Kumar Construction Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia):- On perusal of Books of account

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)

20,000/- has been outrightly rejected by AO and 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) and rejecting the books of accounts regularly maintained and holding that the audited books of accounts were not absolutely reliable. So, we pray for consider

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

section 142(1) on 15.12.2020, the ld. Assessing Officer considering the reply of the assessee furnished on 26.12.2020 called for further more information vide letter dated 17.02.2021. In the said notice, the assessee was asked to produce books of account, reply to the various Bank accounts, which were inventorised during the survey proceedings, brief note about the business activity

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

ASHOK KUMAR,BHOJPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, ARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 259/PAT/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Patna10 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 40

20% out of expenses claimed under various heads. (8) For that the sustenance of addition/disallowances of Rs.7,26,001/-, Rs. 10,56,328/-, Rs.32,71,379/-, Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.76.191/- by the Ld. CIT(A) are wrong, illegal and unjustified on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. (9) For that the whole order

RAKESH KUMAR,PATNA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2012-13

ITA 86/PAT/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna23 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos.85 & 86/Pat/2017 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80I

Depreciation for the year Electricals & equipments 17,013 2,552 Furniture & fixture 44,742 4,474 Tools & equipments 91,252 13,263 Computer 24,604 (new) 14,762 Printer 5,000 (new) 840 From above chart, it is evident that to manufacture/produce ultrasonography and X-ray machines which resulted In sale of Rs.5,10,49,366/- & net profit of Rs.2

RAKESH KUMAR,PATNA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2012-13

ITA 85/PAT/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Patna23 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos.85 & 86/Pat/2017 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80I

Depreciation for the year Electricals & equipments 17,013 2,552 Furniture & fixture 44,742 4,474 Tools & equipments 91,252 13,263 Computer 24,604 (new) 14,762 Printer 5,000 (new) 840 From above chart, it is evident that to manufacture/produce ultrasonography and X-ray machines which resulted In sale of Rs.5,10,49,366/- & net profit of Rs.2

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