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 “depreciation”+ Section 11(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,634Delhi4,360Bangalore1,731Chennai1,628Kolkata980Ahmedabad603Hyderabad362Jaipur331Pune297Karnataka263Chandigarh183Raipur165Indore139Cochin125Amritsar100Visakhapatnam88SC80Lucknow78Surat70Telangana58Rajkot53Jodhpur52Ranchi50Cuttack39Nagpur35Guwahati29Kerala20Calcutta17Panaji16Patna16Allahabad10Dehradun10Agra9Orissa7Punjab & Haryana7Rajasthan6Varanasi6Jabalpur4Gauhati2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Tripura1D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 37(4)6Addition to Income5Depreciation5Section 260A4Section 115J4Deduction4Section 1473Disallowance3Section 143

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

Depreciation” ignoring the provisions of section 2(24) read with section 28 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which provides that “income” includes profits and gains and the profits and gains of any business or profession carried on by the assessee at any time during the previous year is taxable?” 3. “Whether, on the facts and in circumstances

2
Section 1442
Section 22
Section 262

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I LUDHIANA vs. M/S VERDHMAN TEXTILES LTD. LUDHIANA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA/315/2011HC Punjab & Haryana24 Mar 2023

Bench: MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI,MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 260ASection 32

3) of the Income Tax Act was completed vide order dated AJAY PRASHER 2023.04.10 11:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ITA No.315 of 2011 (O&M) -2- 30.12.2009. However, the Assessing Officer, after recording the reasons for reopening the assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, issued notice to the assessee under

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)

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 (1) or sub-section (3), (i) no allowance shall be made in respect of any expenditure

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

depreciation of section 32;] g s f f s n d e r h n n d l e f r f r d n VARINDER SINGH 2024.11.14 14:36 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this order/judgment ITA N 5. interpreted b considered b and relatable information a evidence whi officer has an relatable to s Therefore

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

3. rent was bei relied upon S The Assessin assessment o of ` 9,28,120 4. (Appeals), w holding that in the hands Act, as the 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

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

11,94,97,875/- on account of balance of excise duty lying in PLA and RG23 as the payment was made before incurring the liability to pay such levy? 3. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that questions No.3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8 stand answered by this Court or by Hon’ble Supreme Court. Questions No.4

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

ITA/267/2009HC Punjab & Haryana04 Feb 2026

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

Section 260ASection 80Section 80H

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘1961 Act’) is seeking setting aside of order dated 21.03.2007 passed by 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