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.

2 results for “depreciation”+ Section 41(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,184Delhi1,963Bangalore804Chennai663Kolkata411Ahmedabad299Hyderabad163Jaipur155Raipur132Chandigarh105Pune92Surat81Indore75Amritsar71Karnataka61Visakhapatnam49Lucknow46Ranchi40Cochin35SC32Rajkot29Nagpur27Guwahati23Telangana20Cuttack20Kerala15Jodhpur13Dehradun9Allahabad5Calcutta5Varanasi4Rajasthan3Agra2Patna2Punjab & Haryana1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1Panaji1Tripura1Orissa1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 1476Section 143(3)3Addition to Income2

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

41,773/-. After the case being processed under section 143(1) of the Act, it was selected for limited scrutiny for two reasons- (i) sales turnover mismatch; (ii) unsecured loans and the same was followed by issuance of valid notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, ld. Assessing Officer asked

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