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.

9 results for “depreciation”+ Section 36(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,654Delhi2,409Bangalore951Chennai859Kolkata496Ahmedabad429Jaipur233Hyderabad226Chandigarh154Raipur148Pune121Surat110Karnataka103Indore81Amritsar74Visakhapatnam57Rajkot55Cuttack54Cochin53Lucknow46SC42Ranchi37Telangana33Nagpur30Guwahati30Jodhpur26Kerala21Dehradun11Agra11Allahabad10Patna9Varanasi8Calcutta8Panaji6Rajasthan5Jabalpur3Punjab & Haryana3ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Gauhati1Tripura1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1

Key Topics

Section 80I14Section 43B11Section 143(3)6Depreciation6Addition to Income6Section 2504Section 1474Section 1483Section 143(2)3Section 36(1)(viia)

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

36 read as under: “1. The Learned CIT(A) has also passed the order in ad hoc manner without going in details of our submission. The Learned ACIT (NFAC) has been pleased to complete the Assessment on u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 by making addition of Rs.1,06,23,768/- mere conjecturers & Surmises. The Appellant is seriously aggrieved with the order

3
Disallowance3
Deduction3

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)

36,11,905/- could be filed and remaining amount of Rs. 1,62,603/- were not able to filed by the assessee. Similarly, in relation to furniture & fixtures, bills were not produced for an amount of Rs. 17,85,223/-. Accordingly, the ld. AO reduced the depreciation claimed by the assessee for reducing the bills were not supplied and total

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

depreciation of earlier years should have been allowed to be set off against the income in view of section 32(2) of the Income Act, 1961. 14. For that the profit & loss account of the appellant reflects credit of Rs. 3,79,54,752/- on account of provisions written back and this has resulted the net profit

ARYAN FLAVOURS,NOIDA vs. DC/AC CIRCLE-1, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 369/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna23 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Ita No. 369 /Pat/2025 ( Asstt. Year: 2018-19) Aryan Flavours Vs Dc/Ac Circle-1, Patna B-8, Sector-6, Noida, Gautam Muzaffarpur, Muzaffarpur, Bihar Buddha Nagar, Noida, Noida, Up- 201301 Patna. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabfa3538J Assessee By : Sh. Sanjeev Kr. Anwar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit. Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2026 Order Per Rajesh Kumar, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjeev Kr. Anwar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT
Section 30Section 36Section 37(1)

depreciation @ 10% on the said expenditure. 3. In the appellate proceedings, the learned CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on this issue by noting that the said expenditure was not allowable under the provisions of section 37(1) which expressly excluded the expenditure which is not in the nature as described in section 30 to section 36

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

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)

1 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Arun Kumar Gupta National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 28th October, 2021 passed for A.Y. 2016-17. 2. Though the assessee has taken nine grounds of appeal, but his only grievance is that ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.7,52,396/-, which was added by the ld. Assessing Officer

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

depreciation of Rs. 44,65,970/- which should have been allowed against the income determined. 8) For that other grounds, if any, will be urged at the time of hearing.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an AOP and had filed its return of income on 20.02.2022 showing total loss

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)

36,990/-. The case of the assessee was selected under scrutiny. The AO found that the books of accounts of the assessee were not properly maintained and not supported by evidence of expenses, no stock register was maintained by the assessee in respect of material purchased, consumed and the sundry creditors were not verifiable. Therefore, he rejected the books