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”+ Rectification u/s 154clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai306Delhi264Bangalore166Chennai92Kolkata68Ahmedabad37Lucknow26Pune25Jaipur24Hyderabad23Chandigarh22Cochin15Visakhapatnam13Indore7Panaji7Raipur7Rajkot5Amritsar5Jodhpur4Karnataka4Nagpur3SC3Surat3Guwahati2Cuttack2Dehradun2Himachal Pradesh1Telangana1Patna1Agra1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 36(1)(va)15Section 143(1)14Section 15414Section 143(3)10Section 26310Section 1476Deduction5Disallowance5Addition to Income5Rectification u/s 154

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(1), RAIPUR vs. MESERSS CHHATTISGARH STATEELECTRICITY BOARD, RAIPUR

ITA 31/RPR/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 Sept 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.31/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board (Through Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited) Dangania Raipur Pan : Aabcc7876Q ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: S/shri Praveen Khandelwal & PraveenFor Respondent: Dr. Simran Bhullar, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

depreciation on the same) 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals), wherein the latter observed that after framing the impugned assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 29.11.2007, the income of the 4 DCIT, Circle-4(1), Raipur Vs. M/s. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board assessee company was reassessed vide order passed

4
Section 1483
Section 80I2

STEEL ABRASIVE INDUSTRIES LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 96/RPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.96/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 Steel Abrasive Industries Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income 301, Shyam Square Second Floor, Tax, Circle-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) Pandri, Raipur, Raipur-H.O, Raipur-492 001 Pan: Aagcs7905P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R.B Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 26/09/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Dated 17.01.2023 Which In Turn Arises From The Order By Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 263 Dated 30.09.2016 For A.Y.2011-12. The Grounds Of The Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. Ld. Cit (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming Addition Of Rs.1,13,20,940/- Made By Ao, On Account Of Alleged Suppression Of Production Of 467.32Mt. Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Action Of Ao In Rejecting Rectification Application Filed By The Appellant. 2. The Impugned Addition Made By The Ld. A.O. Is Bad In Law, Illegal, Unjustified, Contrary To Facts & Law & Based Upon Recording Of Incorrect Facts & Finding, In Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice & The Same Should Have Been Quashed By The Ld. Cit (Appeals). 3. The Appellant Reserves The Right To Amend, Modify Or Add Any Of The Ground/S Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

u/s 154, thus the same is false claim. copy of letter along with enclosures is extracted hereunder :- 6 7 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, the addition proposed on account of suppression of production by Ld PCIT was made by the A.O vide order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s 263 dated

ISHWAR ISPAT INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,RAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 172/RPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.172/Rpr/2018 ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Ishwar Ispat Industries Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit-2(1), Raipur Plot No.168, Sector-C, Industrial Area, Urla, Raipur (C.G.) Pan No. : Aabci 4258 C (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri R.B.Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N.Singh, Sr. DR
Section 154

u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act. A mistake which can be discovered only by a complicated process of investigation, argument, elucidation or debate cannot be said to be a “apparent mistake” and as such provisions of section 154 cannot be invoked for rectifications. In the factual circumstances of the present case we find relevance of the above judicial pronouncements

MARUTI CLEAN COAL AND POWER LTD.,RAIPUR vs. PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX-1, RAIPUR

ITA 55/RPR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 55/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Maruti Clean Coal & Power Ltd. Ward No.42, Building No.14, Civil Lines, Near Income Tax Colony, Chhattisgarh-492 001. Pan : Aadcm4810C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By :Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms. Ananya Kapoor & Ms. Soumya Singh, Advocates. Revenue By :Shri P. K Mishra, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2022

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms. AnanyaFor Respondent: Shri P. K Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(2)

depreciation of Rs.1,55,66,921/-, while for its book profit u/s.115JB witnessed no modification. 4. Subsequently the A.O reopened the concluded assessment of the assessee company u/s.147 of the Act. Notice u/s.148 of the Act, dated 14.03.2018 was issued by the AO to the assessee company. The A.O thereafter framed the reassessment vide his order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s

ARUN KUMAR VERMA, BHILAI,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(2), BHILAI, DURG

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 80/RPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.79 & 80/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-2020 Arun Kumar Verma Plot No.152, Telgu Para, Maroda Tank, Maroda, Bhilai (C.G.) Pan : Abkpv0530H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Puja Bajaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

rectification was rejected by the CPC vide its order passed u/s.154 of the Act dated 23.09.2020. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the order passed by the A.O/CPC, Bengaluru u/s.154 of the Act carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) but without success. The CIT(Appeals) while affirming the view taken by the A.O/CPC, Bengaluru, had observed

ARUN KUMAR VERMA, BHILAI,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(2), BHILAI, DURG

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 79/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.79 & 80/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-2020 Arun Kumar Verma Plot No.152, Telgu Para, Maroda Tank, Maroda, Bhilai (C.G.) Pan : Abkpv0530H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Puja Bajaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

rectification was rejected by the CPC vide its order passed u/s.154 of the Act dated 23.09.2020. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the order passed by the A.O/CPC, Bengaluru u/s.154 of the Act carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) but without success. The CIT(Appeals) while affirming the view taken by the A.O/CPC, Bengaluru, had observed

ANJANI KUMAR DWIVEDI,DURG vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 98/RPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 98/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Anjani Kumar Dwivedi Qtr. No. Lc 6/D, Street No.18, Camp-1, Bhilai, Dist. Durg (C.G.)-490 023 Pan: Aigpd3229G .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Asstt. Director Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: None (Written submission)For Respondent: Shri Gitesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

rectification filed an application u/s.154 of the Act, which, however, was rejected by the A.O vide his order dated 08.06.2020. 4. Aggrieved the assessee assailed the order passed by the A.O u/s.154 of the Act before the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals). Although the CIT(A) vacated the disallowance of Rs.86,527/- out of the disallowance of Rs.2