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.

7 results for “depreciation”+ Section 26clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,775Delhi2,575Bangalore1,114Chennai864Kolkata533Ahmedabad411Jaipur235Hyderabad228Raipur148Pune135Chandigarh133Karnataka109Indore94Amritsar84Surat82Visakhapatnam66Cochin55Cuttack49SC44Lucknow43Rajkot38Ranchi34Guwahati29Jodhpur29Telangana25Nagpur23Kerala17Dehradun11Allahabad9Patna7Agra6Panaji4Varanasi4Jabalpur3Calcutta3Rajasthan2Punjab & Haryana2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1Tripura1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 143(2)5Addition to Income5Section 142(1)4Depreciation4Section 143(3)3Section 145(3)3Disallowance3Section 1482Section 1472Section 143(1)

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

section 139(3) of the Act, the losses would not be allowed to be carried forward. Due to the above facts, a notice u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act was issue to the assessee on 04.02.2013 to make requisite compliance. In response to the same, the assessee filed submission that the return of income filed the A.Y. 2010-11

2
Section 2632
Limitation/Time-bar2

RAVI LOCHAN SINGH,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, PATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 124/PAT/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 250Section 32Section 32(1)

depreciation will be allowed as per the provision of section 32(1) of IT Act. Hence, the appellant's contention that the addition was arbitrary found incorrect and after considering the facts and merits of the case, I dismissed this ground. Ground No- 3 regarding disallowance of Rs. 2,32,000/- on account of 50% of the rental income

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)

26-03-2009 Dena-285 975985 96,000/- Subhash Kumar 31-05-2008 PNB-9926 821336 1,50,000/- Subhash Kumar 08-09-2008 PNB-9926 797767 5,00,000/- Subodh Kumar 08-07-2008 SBI-347 735727 6,1 1,600/- Vinod Chandra 14-07-2008 Dena-285 975914 1,47,000/- Vinod Kumar

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)

26,850/- and 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 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

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

26 entities against 64 entities mentioned in the show cause notice who are sundry creditors above Rs. 5,00,000/- for the A.Yr. 2018- 19 (F.Y. 2017-18) in respect of the assessee. On perusal of the reply and above discussion also clearly indicates that the assessee has not responded to the issues raised vide the show cause notice

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, MUZAFFARPUR vs. M/S R.P.RAI ESTATE PVT LTD, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 28/PAT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna03 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Circle-1, Muzaffarpur M/S. R.P. Rai Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs 19, Goharua, Patliputra Colony, Patliputra, Patna- 800013. Pan: Aaccr 4972 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, Jcit, Dr Respondent By : Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 19.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.04.2024 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Of The Revenue For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.06.2020 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal), Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’].

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, JCIT, DRFor Respondent: Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate
Section 143(2)

26 ITR 775 (S.C) where in Apex Court has held that AO cannot make any addition on the account of his guess work without having any material evidence on record. The relevant extracts of the said judgment is reproduced as under: 4 M/s. R.P. Rai Estate Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2017-18 "that in making the assessment under sub-section

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

26,001/- on account of estimation of profit on the turnover of Rs.17.09 crores. 7. The ld. Assessing Officer on second page of the assessment order has recorded a specific finding that the assessee has expressed its inability to submit anything because according to the assessee, all its accounts have been lost and it does not have any document. Therefore