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.

6 results for “depreciation”+ Section 63clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,654Delhi1,423Bangalore519Chennai478Ahmedabad292Kolkata289Jaipur149Hyderabad140Chandigarh90Pune86Raipur67Indore65Surat47Karnataka42Ranchi39Lucknow39Cuttack38Visakhapatnam35SC28Cochin25Rajkot24Amritsar19Nagpur15Dehradun12Telangana12Guwahati11Allahabad9Agra6Patna6Jodhpur6Panaji4Calcutta3Punjab & Haryana2Rajasthan1Orissa1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1Kerala1Jabalpur1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 43B11Section 2639Section 40A(3)6Section 143(2)5Addition to Income5Disallowance4Section 142(1)3Section 143(1)2Section 143(3)2Depreciation

S.RANJAN & BROTHERS,MUZAFFARPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 71/PAT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna14 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2017-18 S. Ranjan & Brothers Dcit, Circle-1, Muzaffarpur Puja Bazar, Motijheel, Muzaffarpur- Vs 842001. Pan: Aaofs 8056 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, Jcit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.05.2024 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.08.2021 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’].

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, JCIT, DR
Section 143(2)Section 40A(3)

63 taxman. 289 where Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that genuineness of payment is not disbelieve the disallowance u/s 40A(3) cannot be made. Moreover, the alleged payments for the materials purchased were capitalize and depreciation was claimed on capital assets purchased by the assessee. Therefore, the application of section

2
Limitation/Time-bar2

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

63. We find the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Vikas Polymer reported in 341 ITR 537 has held as under: “We are thus of the opinion that the provisions of s. 263 of the Act, when read as a composite whole make it incumbent upon the CIT before exercising revisional powers to: (i) call

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)

63,600/- 1. 2. Sri Janak Kumar Singh 43,30,000/- 3. Sri Baramdev Yadav 28,60,400/- 4. Sri Ashok Yadav 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

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

63,24,116 u/s 43B of the I.T. Act. 3) For that to decide that NCDC is a Public Financial Institution, the website of NCDC was analysed and on the basis of the activities listed, it has been presumed that it is a Public Financial Institution, whereas the provisions of explanation 40 to of section 43B of I.T. Act refers

NORTH BIHAR POWER DISTRUBUTION CO. LTD,PATNA vs. PR. CIT-1, PATNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 224/PAT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Kumar,FCAFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, Addl. CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 263(2)

section (1) after the expiry of two 3 North Bihar Power Distribution Co. Ltd. AY 2017-18 years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed.” 4. Ground 4: The learned PCIT has erred in law, and passed an order u/s 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961 by non-considering replies

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

63,80,781/- has been added back as undisclosed income on unrecorded purchases. Both the authorities have made analysis of the 10 Assessment Year: 2010-2011 Ashok Kumar material found during the course of survey. The assessee failed to submit any material to rebut the conclusions of facts arrived at by the revenue authorities below. Therefore, we do not find