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.

5 results for “depreciation”+ Section 32(1)(iii)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,248Delhi2,001Bangalore865Chennai636Kolkata436Ahmedabad328Hyderabad206Jaipur183Karnataka162Raipur147Chandigarh133Pune116Amritsar79Indore79Surat60Cuttack51SC47Visakhapatnam46Lucknow44Rajkot44Cochin29Guwahati26Telangana24Jodhpur18Nagpur16Ranchi15Kerala14Calcutta13Allahabad11Agra10Panaji9Dehradun8Patna5Rajasthan2Orissa2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1Varanasi1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 80I14Deduction4Section 143(2)3Section 2503Section 143(3)3Addition to Income3Section 282Section 36(1)(viia)2Disallowance2

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)

32,56,424/- 5. Sri Manish Kumar 1,00,000/- ___________________ Total: 1,43,10,424/- ___________________ 13. It is pertinent to mention here that the assessee has not shown this expense separately, in its audit report. Had the books of A/c not perused thoroughly, this fact would have gone unnoticed. As this expense is in the nature of rent, therefore

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

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

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, PATNA vs. BIHAR KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK, MUNGER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 257/PAT/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(viia)

iii. Any other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 2. The brief facts of the case culled out from the material available on record are as under: The assessee is engaged in the business of banking and filed its return of income declaring at Nil. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and thereafter

ACIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA vs. SH. SURESH , PATNA

ITA 205/PAT/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna27 Jun 2024AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Alok Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT D/R
Section 250Section 28Section 54Section 54F

iii) Ld. CIT(A) erred in accepting the claim of the assessee regarding the cost of construction of the Rupam Tower building. He also erred in accepting the actual period of construction of the building.” 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in cross- objection:- “1. For that the grounds of cross objection hereto are without prejudice