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.

2 results for “depreciation”+ Section 34clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,471Delhi2,215Bangalore936Chennai779Kolkata479Ahmedabad329Jaipur194Hyderabad189Karnataka153Raipur153Chandigarh129Pune108Indore107Surat96Cochin83Amritsar75Visakhapatnam64Rajkot44Lucknow43SC38Ranchi37Jodhpur37Cuttack34Guwahati27Telangana22Nagpur21Kerala16Dehradun12Panaji11Calcutta9Allahabad5Rajasthan5Varanasi4Jabalpur3Punjab & Haryana2Gauhati1D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1Tripura1Patna1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 1475Section 1484Section 1433Section 260A2Depreciation2Reopening of Assessment2

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

depreciation, allowed under different heads could not exceed the original cost to the assessee of those items of capital assets. The appellant cannot be held liable because of this remissness on the part of the Income-tax officer in not applying the law contained in clause (c) of the proviso to section

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

34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ITA No.315 of 2011 (O&M) -3- expenditure as the assessee’s contention that ownership of the assets created vested with MPEB, was not supported by any evidence and even otherwise the assessee was having sole and exclusive rights over the aforesaid bay lines. A reference was made