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.

8 results for “depreciation”+ Section 33clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,458Delhi2,218Bangalore957Chennai715Kolkata434Ahmedabad350Jaipur202Hyderabad194Raipur134Chandigarh123Karnataka88Indore81Pune80Amritsar58Visakhapatnam56Surat44Lucknow42SC42Ranchi39Cochin28Rajkot26Telangana20Nagpur20Cuttack19Kerala17Jodhpur16Guwahati15Dehradun9Agra8Patna8Allahabad6Panaji3Calcutta3Rajasthan2Jabalpur2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Gauhati1D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1Orissa1Punjab & Haryana1Tripura1

Key Topics

Section 44A36Section 271A18Section 43B11Depreciation7Penalty7Section 56Section 206Section 406Deduction6Disallowance

MAHUA COOPERATIVE COLD STORAGE LTD, MAHUA,VAISHALI vs. ADIT,CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

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

ITA 520/PAT/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Patna19 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 43BSection 4A

section 43B. 6) For that the addition on account of interest payable to NCDC is, therefore, liable to be deleted. 7) For that the appellant has carried forward loss of Rs. 50,33,596/- and carried forward unabsorbed depreciation

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

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

2
Addition to Income2
ITA 234/PAT/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed
ITAT Patna
13 Sept 2024
AY 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

33 of 2009, Section 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

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

33 of 2009, Section 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

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

33 of 2009, Section 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

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

33 of 2009, Section 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

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

33 of 2009, Section 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

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

33 of 2009, Section 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

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)

33 of the Indian Income-tax Rules, 1922, for the purpose of computing the income of a nonresident even if the ITO had not done so in the assessment proceedings. In CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate [1964] 53 ITR 225 , a three- judge Bench of this Court discussed the scope of section 31(3)(a ) of the 1922 Act, which