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.

7 results for “section 68”+ Depreciationclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,928Delhi1,609Bangalore645Ahmedabad466Chennai396Kolkata337Jaipur233Hyderabad206Pune158Chandigarh116Visakhapatnam87Raipur84Indore82Surat62Lucknow60Cuttack57Nagpur40Ranchi40Rajkot38Cochin37Karnataka34Amritsar27Guwahati25Jodhpur19SC19Agra19Telangana9Patna7Varanasi7Kerala6Allahabad6Dehradun5Panaji4Calcutta3Jabalpur2Rajasthan1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Tripura1

Key Topics

Section 14711Section 143(3)9Section 44A8Addition to Income6Section 143(2)5Section 1445Section 1484Section 2503Section 133(6)3Penalty

M/S MANISH FINLEASE (P) LTD,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), PATNA

ITA 25/PAT/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-2011 Manish Finlease Pvt Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 2(1), Patna Chandi House Exhibition Road, Patna Pan/Gir No.Aaccm 6252 B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K.Rastogi & Rakesh Kumar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Indrajeet Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/06/ 2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/08/ 2019 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Patna Dated 27.9.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 51 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons For Not Filing The Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. After Hearing The Submissions Of The Parties, We Are Satisfied That The Assessee Had A Bonafide Reason For Not Filing The Appeal In Time. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Rastogi & Rakesh Kumar, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Indrajeet Singh, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(1)Section 68
3
Limitation/Time-bar3
Condonation of Delay3

depreciation to be allowed under sections 30 and 32. The Assessing Officer determined the taxable income making additions and disallowances. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 148 and reopened the assessment P a g e 10 | 71 Assessment Year : 2010 -2011 under section 147 on the basis of under assessment. The assessee objected to the reopening

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

68 of the Act for alleged unexplained cash credit. 6. The assessee challenged the reopening being bad in law and illegal before the ld. CIT(Appeals) stating that all the information relating to the alleged cash credits have been examined by the ld. Assessing Officer in the proceeding under section 143(3) of the Act and there being no fresh

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)

depreciation of Rs.9,42,162/-, which will be allowed along with interest and remuneration to partners allowable. The disallowances made by the A.O. u/s 40A(3) and section 40(a)(ia) are hereby deleted and income is estimated at the end of discussion of all other grounds of appeal”. 6. The ld. Sr. D.R. took us through the assessment order

ACIT vs. INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL OF SOCIAL WELFARE HUMAN RESOURCES,

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed while the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 119/PAT/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Oct 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Abhi Sarkar, AdvFor Respondent: Ld. DR. Lalita Kumari, Sr. DR
Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

68,523/- as 'Advance to Landlord'. At the same time, the Society has paid Rs. 18,00,000/- as rent (to the landlords). The landlords in question are also the members of the Society or their family members. Thus, the assessee -Society is directly passing the benefits to its members. The Society is, therefore, not existing solely for education

M/S NORTH BIHAR DISTRIBUTOR,PURNEA vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), PURNEA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 68/PAT/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Jha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rupesh Agrawal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

68,199/- has been claimed, reporting Rs. 1,295/- as total income for the year under consideration. 5.2. Ld. AO drew attention to the provisions of section 44AD(5) according to which if an assessee claims that the profits from the business are lower than the profits and gains as specified in sub section (1) then, the assessee shall

M/S NORTH BIHAR DISTRIBUTOR,PURNEA vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), PURNEA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 48/PAT/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Jha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rupesh Agrawal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

68,199/- has been claimed, reporting Rs. 1,295/- as total income for the year under consideration. 5.2. Ld. AO drew attention to the provisions of section 44AD(5) according to which if an assessee claims that the profits from the business are lower than the profits and gains as specified in sub section (1) then, the assessee shall

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)

depreciation claimed in the profit and loss accounts. However, doing so, he allowed salary and interest to partners amounting to Rs. 3,97,897/- therefrom. Since the assessee firm was reconstituted and seven partners had introduced Rs. 17,86,586/- towards their capital and out of seven partners did not file any documentary proof to explain the source of capital