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.

10 results for “depreciation”+ Addition to Incomeclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai5,400Delhi5,018Chennai1,893Bangalore1,663Kolkata1,219Ahmedabad693Pune403Hyderabad367Jaipur354Chandigarh219Raipur194Indore158Cochin158Karnataka158Surat156Amritsar135Visakhapatnam103Lucknow98Rajkot88Cuttack72Nagpur71SC63Telangana59Jodhpur56Ranchi56Guwahati45Panaji34Dehradun32Calcutta29Patna28Kerala26Agra14Allahabad11Varanasi11Jabalpur11Punjab & Haryana10Rajasthan6Orissa5Gauhati2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Tripura1S. B. SINHA MARKANDEY KATJU1D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1

Key Topics

Addition to Income10Section 809Depreciation8Section 80I7Section 37(4)6Deduction6Disallowance6Section 294Section 115J4

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX FARIDABAD vs. M/S NHPC LTD

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA/336/2015HC Punjab & Haryana20 Sept 2019

Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 2Section 2(24)Section 24Section 260ASection 28

Income Tax Act?” 2. “Whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT was right in law in deleting the addition of Rs.131,75,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) (and not under section 115JB) on account of “Advance Against Depreciation

Section 69C3
Section 43
Section 260A3

M/S VIJAY KUMAR GARG CONTRACTORS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed

ITA/110/2003HC Punjab & Haryana08 Aug 2024

Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

income by applying net profit AO to allow depreciation as per keeping the judgment of Hon'ble h Court in the case of Chopra accordingly. This part of the f appeal relates to the fact that justified in restricting the 0 from the trading addition

M/S Y.S. AND CO-OWNERS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ETC.

ITA/20/2008HC Punjab & Haryana09 Sept 2024

Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

Section 144Section 167B(2)(i)Section 2Section 26

Depreciation Gurdeep Sin purchase of (Appeals), ho income recei the same as u to be not fall income from 5. Amritsar. Th its order dat income of th . 20 of 2008 posited in one bank account. T ceedings to assess the income o .O.P. (Association of Persons). The appellant submitted object ing earned by the co-owners as Section

CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OSD LUDHIANA vs. M/S CEIGALL INDIA LTD

ITA/61/2021HC Punjab & Haryana06 Aug 2022

Bench: Cit(A). The Same Was Partly Allowed. The Addition Made By Applying Net Profit Dinesh Kumar 2022.10.16 16:54 I Attest To The Accuracy & Integrity Of This Document

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 145(3)Section 260Section 29Section 40Section 69C

depreciation is to be allowed from the income determined by applying the net profit rate of 6.5%.” DINESH KUMAR 2022.10.16 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ITA-61-2021 (O&M) 3 6. While dealing with the issue of addition

MANGE RAM MITTAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/51/2007HC Punjab & Haryana14 Nov 2024

Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

Section 132(1)Section 143Section 144Section 147Section 158

additions made by the assessing order that the Revenue and the 7 preferred by Mr. Mange Ram ised by learned counsel for the was made only on the basis of liament had enacted a separate special procedure for assessment de. The amount to be subject to direct nexus with the material search operations alone. The vidence found during the course

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CONSUMER HEALTHCARE LTD

ITA/325/2016HC Punjab & Haryana04 Feb 2026

Bench: MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL,MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Section 260ASection 80

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short ‘ITAT’). 2. The appellant has raised following questions for adjudication by this Court:- (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in deleting the addition of Rs. 4.5 cr. made on account of treating the compensation received by the assessee

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, CHD vs. M/S VENUS REMEDIES LTD.

ITA/81/2012HC Punjab & Haryana25 Jul 2024

Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

Section 33BSection 35(2)Section 4Section 69CSection 80Section 80I

Income Tax-II, CHD Vs. emedies Ltd. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Advocate fo RAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) The case was admitted on 04. estion of law:- 1) Whether on the facts and in th Hon'ble ITAT was right in uphol who directed the AO to realloc and to reduce

OSWAL WOOLLEN MILLS LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/111/2003HC Punjab & Haryana06 Aug 2024

Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present Mr. B.M. Monga, Advocate and Mr. Rohit Kaura, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel for the respondent. *** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) 1. This appeal was admitted on 09.02.2004, but no substantial question

INDUSTRIAL CABLES PVT. LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX & ANR.

ITA/10/2005HC Punjab & Haryana03 Dec 2025

Bench: MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL,MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Section 37(4)

Income- tax (Appeals) and restore the disallowance of Rs. 6,24,819/-.” DEEPAK BISSYAN 2025.12.04 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ITA-10-2005 (O&M) -3- 3. The expenses were disallowed by Tribunal relying upon Section 37(4) of 1961 Act. Section 37(4) reads as:- “(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section

C I T vs. M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE CONSUMER HELATHCARE LTD.

ITA/271/2009HC Punjab & Haryana05 Feb 2026

Bench: MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL,MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Section 260ASection 80Section 80H

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short ‘ITAT’). 2. The appellant has raised following questions for adjudication by this Court:- i. Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT is right in law in treating the expenditure incurred on product development as revenue expenditure, when the purpose of the expenditure & its intended reality is to obtain