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.

71 results for “depreciation”+ Section 40A(7)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai542Delhi434Bangalore149Chennai123Ahmedabad122Kolkata101Raipur100Pune71Jaipur70Amritsar56Hyderabad56Chandigarh49Visakhapatnam39Surat39Indore23Cochin21Cuttack20Rajkot14Guwahati10Lucknow9Jodhpur6Varanasi5Patna4Karnataka4SC3Agra3Dehradun3Ranchi3Nagpur2Calcutta2Allahabad1Jabalpur1Telangana1Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 14A48Addition to Income39Section 143(3)36Section 12A36Disallowance33Section 10(20)24Section 1124Section 26320Section 40A(3)18Section 80I

ASSOCIATED DAIRY FAB PVT. LTD.,,JALGAON vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 177/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.177/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Associated Dairy Fab Pvt. Ltd., B-5/1, Midc Area, Ajantha Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Jalgaon – 425003 …. Pan: Aaeca3963F Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range – 2, Jalgaon

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha
Section 143(3)(ii)Section 40A(3)

section 143(3)(ii) of Income Tax Act 1961 (in short the ‘Act’). 2. The cross appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. The assessee in ITA No.177/PUN/2014 has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1] The learned CIT(A) erred in holding

Showing 1–20 of 71 · Page 1 of 4

17
Depreciation17
Deduction16

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. ASSOCIATED DAIRY FAB PVT. LTD.,, JALGAON

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 211/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.177/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Associated Dairy Fab Pvt. Ltd., B-5/1, Midc Area, Ajantha Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Jalgaon – 425003 …. Pan: Aaeca3963F Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range – 2, Jalgaon

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha
Section 143(3)(ii)Section 40A(3)

section 143(3)(ii) of Income Tax Act 1961 (in short the ‘Act’). 2. The cross appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. The assessee in ITA No.177/PUN/2014 has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1] The learned CIT(A) erred in holding

SANJAY VASANTRAO WANI,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2491/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2491/Pun/2016 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi
Section 40A(3)Section 44A

40A(3) can be made even though the income is assessed under section 44AD of the Act. 5. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals)-I, Nashik, is not justified in confirming the adhoc disallowance to the extent

ITO, WARD-1(1), SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR vs. MS. KSHIRSAGAR FABRICS, SOLAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 97/PUN/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

7 opinion is not permissible while exercising the powers under section 147 read with section 148 of the Income-tax Act. This decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court squarely applies to the instant case. The decision of the Bombay High Court in IL&FS was also affirmed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT v Rajan Aswani

M/S. RAJMAL LAKHICHAND vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 670/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sunil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)(a)

section 2(22)(e) of the Act are not attracted. 3.8 In respect of ground No. 5 regarding disallowance of interest of Rs.3,08,889/- u/s. 36(1)(iii), the ld. AR submitted that during the course of day-to-day business the assessee has provided funds to various unrelated parties. These parties have neither paid interest nor refunded

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. RAJMAL LAKHICHAND,,

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 832/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sunil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)(a)

section 2(22)(e) of the Act are not attracted. 3.8 In respect of ground No. 5 regarding disallowance of interest of Rs.3,08,889/- u/s. 36(1)(iii), the ld. AR submitted that during the course of day-to-day business the assessee has provided funds to various unrelated parties. These parties have neither paid interest nor refunded

DY. CIT, CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE vs. GERA DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 767/PUN/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jun 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 597/Pun/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Khandelwal & Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT
Section 133ASection 154Section 69

7,00,000.00 Jagwani 120 04.03.2005 Received from Dr. 500000 Jagwani Pages other than 120, 121 and 122 121 23.07.2004 Received from Dubey 100000 68/69 02.09.2004 3,00,000.00 121 23.08.2004 Received from Anjum 242800 Datta Total 82,94,744.00 Therefore, Ld. Counsel submitted for grant of adjustments narrated above and delete the addition of Rs.1.61 crores. 18. Case

GERA DEVELOPMENTS PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) -1,,

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1609/PUN/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jun 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 597/Pun/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Khandelwal & Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT
Section 133ASection 154Section 69

7,00,000.00 Jagwani 120 04.03.2005 Received from Dr. 500000 Jagwani Pages other than 120, 121 and 122 121 23.07.2004 Received from Dubey 100000 68/69 02.09.2004 3,00,000.00 121 23.08.2004 Received from Anjum 242800 Datta Total 82,94,744.00 Therefore, Ld. Counsel submitted for grant of adjustments narrated above and delete the addition of Rs.1.61 crores. 18. Case

GERA DEVELOPMENTS PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASST. CIT, CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 597/PUN/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jun 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 597/Pun/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Khandelwal & Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT
Section 133ASection 154Section 69

7,00,000.00 Jagwani 120 04.03.2005 Received from Dr. 500000 Jagwani Pages other than 120, 121 and 122 121 23.07.2004 Received from Dubey 100000 68/69 02.09.2004 3,00,000.00 121 23.08.2004 Received from Anjum 242800 Datta Total 82,94,744.00 Therefore, Ld. Counsel submitted for grant of adjustments narrated above and delete the addition of Rs.1.61 crores. 18. Case

RAJMAL LAKHICHAND JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, JALGAON

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 672/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sunil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 40A(2)(a)

depreciation and expenses in relation to the said flats. Similar view was taken by the Tribunal in ITA No. 671/PN/2015 for assessment year 2009-10. 4. On the other hand Shri Rajeev Kumar representing the Department vehemently supported the findings of Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on the issues raised by assessee in appeal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. RAJMAL LAKHICHAND JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,,

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 834/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sunil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 40A(2)(a)

depreciation and expenses in relation to the said flats. Similar view was taken by the Tribunal in ITA No. 671/PN/2015 for assessment year 2009-10. 4. On the other hand Shri Rajeev Kumar representing the Department vehemently supported the findings of Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on the issues raised by assessee in appeal

SRL CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD,JALNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 847/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.847/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Srl Construction Pvt. Ltd., V The Acit, 197, Khasgaon, Jafrabad, S Central Circle-2, Jalna – 444203. Aurangabad. Pan: Aaqcs7227L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Prateekjha – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr.Dipak P.Ripote, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax(Central)-Nagpur, Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 08.03.2024 For A.Y.2019-20. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. A) On The Facts & Circumstance Prevailing In The Case & In Law, Honorable Pr. Cit (Central), Nagpur Has Erred In Not Considering The Submission Made By The Appellant In Fair And

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)

40A(3) discussed above. Therefore, there is not merit in the contention of the ld.AR. 4.9 The second issue discussed by ld.Pr.CIT in the order under section 263 of the Act is regarding difference in the Written Down Value(WDV) of the assets. We have perused Copy of the Return of Income filed by assessee. The depreciation on plant

DANA INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 473/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.473/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 92C

7 Dana India Private Limited not relevant. The assessment year under consideration is 2013- 14. Neither the safe harbour rules apply as such to the year under consideration nor has the assessee given any option to be governed by them. As such, the TPO was not justified in applying the definition of `operating profit’ and `operating expense’ given under Rule

SILVER OAK BUILDCON PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. ACIT-6, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2589/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Miss Aarti ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

section 40A(7) of the Act indicates that the assessee made a computation error in its return of income. Apart from the fact that the assessee did not notice the error, it was not even noticed even by the Assessing Officer who framed the assessment order. In that sense, even the Assessing Officer seems to have made a mistake

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX ,, JALGAON vs. M/S. RAJMAL LAKHICHAND & SONS,,

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1547/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1360/Pun/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Sunil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Chaware
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36

7 kg= 8,11,300 17.3.08 16328-15200=1128 x 9 kg= 10,15,200 66 kg= 50,96,700 13. Before First Appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that the said decision of Assessing Officer constitutes guess work and therefore, should not be sustained. Absence of provisions for taxing the cases of lower sales price, similar to that of section

M/S. RAJMAL LAKHICHAND & SONS vs. JOINT COMMISSINER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1360/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1360/Pun/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Sunil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Chaware
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36

7 kg= 8,11,300 17.3.08 16328-15200=1128 x 9 kg= 10,15,200 66 kg= 50,96,700 13. Before First Appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that the said decision of Assessing Officer constitutes guess work and therefore, should not be sustained. Absence of provisions for taxing the cases of lower sales price, similar to that of section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHARP DESIGNERS & ENGINEERS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2283/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2263/Pun/2014 आयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2010-11 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 14ASection 40A(2)(b)Section 80ASection 80I

depreciated value of Fixed assets instead of Gross Block of assets as appearing in audited financial results while arriving at the interest disallowance under rule 8D.” 4. Briefly stated relevant facts are that the assessee is a company engaged in the manufacturing of Engineering goods and Generation of electricity through windmill. Assessee made a claim of deduction u/s.80IA

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. SHARP DESIGNER AND ENGINEERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1262/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2263/Pun/2014 आयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2010-11 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 14ASection 40A(2)(b)Section 80ASection 80I

depreciated value of Fixed assets instead of Gross Block of assets as appearing in audited financial results while arriving at the interest disallowance under rule 8D.” 4. Briefly stated relevant facts are that the assessee is a company engaged in the manufacturing of Engineering goods and Generation of electricity through windmill. Assessee made a claim of deduction u/s.80IA

SHARP DESIGNERS AND ENGINEERS INDIA P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2263/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2263/Pun/2014 आयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2010-11 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 14ASection 40A(2)(b)Section 80ASection 80I

depreciated value of Fixed assets instead of Gross Block of assets as appearing in audited financial results while arriving at the interest disallowance under rule 8D.” 4. Briefly stated relevant facts are that the assessee is a company engaged in the manufacturing of Engineering goods and Generation of electricity through windmill. Assessee made a claim of deduction u/s.80IA

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. RAJMAL LAKHICHAND & SONS,,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1177/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Pune18 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Pathak
Section 142Section 14ASection 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)

depreciation of Rs.26,72,095/-. During the year under consideration, the turnover of the assessee was Rs.2,96,09,88,727/-. Gross profit and net profit for the year are shown at 2.75% and 1.57% respectively. Special Audit u/s.142(2A) of the I.T. Act was carried out wherein it was found that assessee made substantial purchases from the sister concerns