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.

9 results for “depreciation”+ Section 260Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi392Karnataka127Mumbai84Bangalore47Kolkata43Chennai38Calcutta35Amritsar33Telangana31Kerala18SC16Jaipur13Punjab & Haryana9Ahmedabad6Hyderabad5Lucknow4Orissa4Indore4Nagpur2Gauhati2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Tripura1Visakhapatnam1D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1Cuttack1Raipur1Rajasthan1Cochin1

Key Topics

Section 809Section 260A8Section 1476Depreciation6Section 1434Section 1484Section 115J4Addition to Income4Deduction4

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

section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) against the order dated 30-9-2014 (Annexure A-III) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in ITA No. 2618/Del/2008 for Assessment Year 2005- 2006, claiming the following substantial questions of law:- 1. “Whether, on the facts

Section 80H3
Reopening of Assessment2
Disallowance2

M/S KAKKAR COMPLEX STEELS (P) LTDE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF IT

Appeal is allowed and

ITA/312/2005HC Punjab & Haryana09 Jan 2023

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

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 260ASection 80BSection 80H

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has been filed against the order dated 06.05.2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar, confirming the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jalandhar, whereby he had held that the Assessing Officer had rightly and validly reopened the assessment for the assessment year 1987-88 for the assessee-company

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

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

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has been filed against the order dated 31.03.2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh, whereby appeal filed by the assessee-M/s Verdhman Textiles Ltd. has been accepted and order dated 26.11.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Ludhiana relating to the assessment year 2007-2008 has been

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

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 in law in treating

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

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

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘1961 Act’) is seeking setting aside of order dated 05.04.2016 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 the facts and in the circumstances of the case

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S PUNJAB SMALL INDUSTRIES & EXPORT CORPN. LTD

The appeal stands disposed of

ITA/9/2012HC Punjab & Haryana25 Feb 2020

Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN

Section 260A

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 23.03.2011 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh passed in ITA No.79/Chandi/2011 for the assessment year 2007-08. [2] Following question of law is claimed:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in upholding the order

CIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S PUNJAB SMALL IND. AND EXPORT CORP. LTD.

The appeal stands disposed of

ITA/705/2008HC Punjab & Haryana25 Feb 2020

Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN

Section 260A

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 30.05.2008 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh passed in ITA No.611/CHD/2006 for the assessment year 2003-04. [2] Following question of law is claimed:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in upholding the order