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.

17 results for “depreciation”+ Section 69Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai49Delhi47Ahmedabad22Chandigarh21Jaipur20Bangalore17Pune17Cochin9Indore9Visakhapatnam6Hyderabad6Surat5Rajkot5Guwahati3Chennai3Amritsar3Kolkata2SC2Karnataka1Allahabad1Cuttack1Dehradun1Agra1Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 69B31Addition to Income17Section 13216Survey u/s 133A9Section 142A8Section 132(4)8Disallowance8Search & Seizure7Section 80I5Section 133A

DCIT, PUNE vs. L B KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1088/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69ASection 69BSection 80I

69B and as per the provisions of section 115BBE(2) no deduction of the same could be allowed to the assessee. 3] The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that there was no bar in section 115BBE to allow deduction of the excess WIP declared in the course of survey in the earlier year and the assessee could claim

5
Section 69A5
Section 115B5

DCIT CIRCLE 7, BODHI TOWER SALISBURY PARK vs. L B KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1046/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69ASection 69BSection 80I

69B and as per the provisions of section 115BBE(2) no deduction of the same could be allowed to the assessee. 3] The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that there was no bar in section 115BBE to allow deduction of the excess WIP declared in the course of survey in the earlier year and the assessee could claim

M/S. L.B. KUNJIR,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 417/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69ASection 69BSection 80I

69B and as per the provisions of section 115BBE(2) no deduction of the same could be allowed to the assessee. 3] The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that there was no bar in section 115BBE to allow deduction of the excess WIP declared in the course of survey in the earlier year and the assessee could claim

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7, PUNE vs. LB KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 240/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69ASection 69BSection 80I

69B and as per the provisions of section 115BBE(2) no deduction of the same could be allowed to the assessee. 3] The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that there was no bar in section 115BBE to allow deduction of the excess WIP declared in the course of survey in the earlier year and the assessee could claim

M/S. L.B. KUNJIR,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 418/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69ASection 69BSection 80I

69B and as per the provisions of section 115BBE(2) no deduction of the same could be allowed to the assessee. 3] The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that there was no bar in section 115BBE to allow deduction of the excess WIP declared in the course of survey in the earlier year and the assessee could claim

VILAS DASHRATH BALWADKAR,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2,, PUNE

ITA 931/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle-2, Vs. Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Pune House No.329, Near Laxmi Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Prakash Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1116A Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dashrath Kondiba Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Aqapb5784C Appellant Respondent

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 153

depreciated its market value. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim of assessee and applied the provision of section 50C(3) to recompute the income from long-term capital gains by taking the sale value at Rs. 1.99 crore and fair market value as on 1-4-1981 at Rs. 2.04 lakhs. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed the order

DASHRATH KONDIBA BALWADKAR,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE -2,, PUNE

ITA 933/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle-2, Vs. Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Pune House No.329, Near Laxmi Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Prakash Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1116A Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dashrath Kondiba Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Aqapb5784C Appellant Respondent

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 153

depreciated its market value. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim of assessee and applied the provision of section 50C(3) to recompute the income from long-term capital gains by taking the sale value at Rs. 1.99 crore and fair market value as on 1-4-1981 at Rs. 2.04 lakhs. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed the order

PRAKASH DASHRATH BALWADKAR,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2,, PUNE

ITA 932/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle-2, Vs. Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Pune House No.329, Near Laxmi Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Prakash Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1116A Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dashrath Kondiba Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Aqapb5784C Appellant Respondent

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 153

depreciated its market value. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim of assessee and applied the provision of section 50C(3) to recompute the income from long-term capital gains by taking the sale value at Rs. 1.99 crore and fair market value as on 1-4-1981 at Rs. 2.04 lakhs. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed the order

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, PUNE vs. VILAS DASHRATH BALWADKAR,, PUNE

ITA 824/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle-2, Vs. Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Pune House No.329, Near Laxmi Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Prakash Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1116A Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dashrath Kondiba Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Aqapb5784C Appellant Respondent

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 153

depreciated its market value. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim of assessee and applied the provision of section 50C(3) to recompute the income from long-term capital gains by taking the sale value at Rs. 1.99 crore and fair market value as on 1-4-1981 at Rs. 2.04 lakhs. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed the order

CYZA CHEM PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1 (1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1784/PUN/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2020AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri R. S. AbhyankarFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 69B

section 69B is squarely applicable. Accordingly, claim of set off of brought forward business loss (excluding depreciation loss) to the tune

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. GHATGE PATIL INDUSTRIES LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the 3 appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1284/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1281 To 1284/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 132Section 132(4)

depreciation should have been allowed. The addition of Rs.4,29,120/- may kindly be deleted. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and modify any of the above grounds of appeal.” ITA Nos. 1070 to 1072/PUN/2016 Ghatge Patil Industries Limited 13. Regarding the issue relating to the DVOs-report linked addition, relevant facts are that the assessee constructed

GHATGE PATIL INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the 3 appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1070/PUN/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1281 To 1284/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 132Section 132(4)

depreciation should have been allowed. The addition of Rs.4,29,120/- may kindly be deleted. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and modify any of the above grounds of appeal.” ITA Nos. 1070 to 1072/PUN/2016 Ghatge Patil Industries Limited 13. Regarding the issue relating to the DVOs-report linked addition, relevant facts are that the assessee constructed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. GHATGE PATIL INDUSTRIES LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the 3 appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1281/PUN/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1281 To 1284/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 132Section 132(4)

depreciation should have been allowed. The addition of Rs.4,29,120/- may kindly be deleted. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and modify any of the above grounds of appeal.” ITA Nos. 1070 to 1072/PUN/2016 Ghatge Patil Industries Limited 13. Regarding the issue relating to the DVOs-report linked addition, relevant facts are that the assessee constructed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. GHATGE PATIL INDUSTRIES LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the 3 appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1283/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1281 To 1284/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 132Section 132(4)

depreciation should have been allowed. The addition of Rs.4,29,120/- may kindly be deleted. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and modify any of the above grounds of appeal.” ITA Nos. 1070 to 1072/PUN/2016 Ghatge Patil Industries Limited 13. Regarding the issue relating to the DVOs-report linked addition, relevant facts are that the assessee constructed

GHATGE PATIL INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the 3 appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1071/PUN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1281 To 1284/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 132Section 132(4)

depreciation should have been allowed. The addition of Rs.4,29,120/- may kindly be deleted. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and modify any of the above grounds of appeal.” ITA Nos. 1070 to 1072/PUN/2016 Ghatge Patil Industries Limited 13. Regarding the issue relating to the DVOs-report linked addition, relevant facts are that the assessee constructed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. GHATGE PATIL INDUSTRIES LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the 3 appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1282/PUN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1281 To 1284/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 132Section 132(4)

depreciation should have been allowed. The addition of Rs.4,29,120/- may kindly be deleted. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and modify any of the above grounds of appeal.” ITA Nos. 1070 to 1072/PUN/2016 Ghatge Patil Industries Limited 13. Regarding the issue relating to the DVOs-report linked addition, relevant facts are that the assessee constructed

GHATGE PATIL INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the 3 appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1072/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1281 To 1284/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 132Section 132(4)

depreciation should have been allowed. The addition of Rs.4,29,120/- may kindly be deleted. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and modify any of the above grounds of appeal.” ITA Nos. 1070 to 1072/PUN/2016 Ghatge Patil Industries Limited 13. Regarding the issue relating to the DVOs-report linked addition, relevant facts are that the assessee constructed