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.

11 results for “depreciation”+ Section 69Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai290Delhi111Amritsar48Jaipur47Bangalore25Chennai21Chandigarh20Kolkata19Indore18Ahmedabad18Surat11Pune11Hyderabad8Lucknow8Cochin5Guwahati5Raipur4Rajkot4Visakhapatnam3SC2Punjab & Haryana2Karnataka1Dehradun1Jodhpur1Agra1Kerala1Telangana1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 69B30Addition to Income11Section 69C10Unexplained Investment8Deduction8Section 115B6Survey u/s 133A6Section 80I5Section 133A5Section 69A

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

69C of the Act such unexplained expenditure available in the provisions of section 69B of the Act. Since the assessee in the instant case has declared the additional income on the basis of impounded documents showing higher calculation of work in progress and there is no evidence on record that the assessee has incurred any such expenditure which

5
Section 143(3)5
Section 684

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

69C of the Act such unexplained expenditure available in the provisions of section 69B of the Act. Since the assessee in the instant case has declared the additional income on the basis of impounded documents showing higher calculation of work in progress and there is no evidence on record that the assessee has incurred any such expenditure which

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

69C of the Act such unexplained expenditure available in the provisions of section 69B of the Act. Since the assessee in the instant case has declared the additional income on the basis of impounded documents showing higher calculation of work in progress and there is no evidence on record that the assessee has incurred any such expenditure which

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

69C of the Act such unexplained expenditure available in the provisions of section 69B of the Act. Since the assessee in the instant case has declared the additional income on the basis of impounded documents showing higher calculation of work in progress and there is no evidence on record that the assessee has incurred any such expenditure which

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

69C of the Act such unexplained expenditure available in the provisions of section 69B of the Act. Since the assessee in the instant case has declared the additional income on the basis of impounded documents showing higher calculation of work in progress and there is no evidence on record that the assessee has incurred any such expenditure which

ITO, WARD-2(2), PUNE, PUNE vs. ANNAPURNA MAHILA CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2108/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 56Section 69CSection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

depreciation debited to income & expenditure account is treated to be unexplained within the meaning of section 69C of the Income

OLIVE TREE TRADING PVT LTD,PUNE vs. ITO, CIRCLE 2, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 899/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Narendra JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 40Section 69C

section 69C of the IT Act and thereby erred in disallowing depreciation amounting to Rs. 66,39,484/- 2 ITA No.899/PUN/2024

MAHENDRA PRAKASH PAWAR,PUNE vs. CIT(A)-2, CHENNAI, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1304/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Sharad Vaze and Shri Amod VazeFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69C

section 69C of the Act for unexplained investment. The impugned addition has been made for the unexplained payment for credit card dues and the details of the same are as under : IndusInd Bank Rs.9,73,444/- Syndicate Bank Rs.10,49,989/- ICICI Bank Rs.14,65,500/- Total Rs.21,69,933/- 8. Now from the above details filed before

SMT. SUNITA G. DESAI,,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, RATNAGIRI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2761/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2761/Pun/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Smt.Sunitag.Desai, The Income Tax Officer, Master Plaza, Jakadevi, Vs Ward-1, Ratnagiri. Khalgaon, Ratnagiri. Pan: Abopd 2868 A Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe - Dr Date Of Hearing 21/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 16/06/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Kolhapur Dated 01.09.2017 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Cit(A)-2, Kolhapur Erred In Law & On Facts In Upholding The Action Of The Learned Ito, Ward-1, Ratnagiri (Hereinafter Referred To As The Learned Ao) In Assessing Total Income Of Appellant At Rs, 50,34,254/- Instead Of Returned Income Of Rs. 4,05,200/-. 2. The Learned Cit(A)-2, Kolhapur Erred In Law & On Facts In Sustaining The Additionof Rs.33,79,054/- Made By The Learned Ao U/S 69C Of The Ita, 1961 For The Bogus Purchases From M/S. Adijin Enterprises & M/S. Hiten Enterprises; Without Appreciating That, No Any Enquiries Were Carried Out By The L-T Authorities In This Regard. 3. The Learned Cit(A)-2, Kolhapur & The Learned Ao Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Appreciating That, The Said Bogus Purchases Of Rs. 33,79,054/- Were, Intact, Capitalized To Plant & Machinery & Depreciation Of Only Rs. 5,06,958/- (I.E. 15% Of Rs. 33,79,054/-) Was Claimed As A Deduction By Appellant During Ay 2009-10. The Learned

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 32Section 41(1)Section 69Section 69C

69C of the ITA, 1961 for the bogus purchases from M/s. Adijin Enterprises and M/s. Hiten Enterprises; without appreciating that, no any enquiries were carried out by the l-T Authorities in this regard. 3. The learned CIT(A)-2, Kolhapur and the learned AO erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that, the said bogus purchases

DHAS KISHOR RAMCHANDRA, AURANGABAD vs. DWARKAPRASAD BHIKULAL SONI, JALNA

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

ITA 1188/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Feb 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anand PartaniFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 132(4)Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)Section 69C

depreciation. Consequently, this element to determine the valuation of the unquoted equity shares is to be considered in a broader way. 5.2.6 Further while determining the deeming income under the Income Tax Act, various concepts are there such as Safe Harbor Rule, Section 50C etc for dealing with the practical difficulties and uncertainties. However, the section 50CA is silent

KAPIL ALCOTECH LLP,AURANGABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 1, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 557/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri K P DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(1)Section 68Section 69C

69C of I.T. Act, 1961 on account of inflated purchases is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 7) The addition made by learned A.O. and upheld by CIT(A) at Rs.33,47,987/- u/s 56(2)(x) of I.T. Act, 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 8) The addition made by learned