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.

15 results for “depreciation”+ Block Assessmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,585Delhi1,192Chennai566Bangalore525Kolkata389Ahmedabad213Hyderabad120Raipur97Karnataka77Jaipur74Chandigarh68Pune58Amritsar47Indore30Surat25Guwahati23SC22Cuttack21Lucknow18Visakhapatnam18Nagpur17Rajkot15Cochin13Telangana12Ranchi6Dehradun5Allahabad3Panaji3Jabalpur3Calcutta2Jodhpur2Kerala2Patna1Punjab & Haryana1Orissa1Rajasthan1D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1

Key Topics

Addition to Income13Disallowance11Section 143(3)10Section 80I10Section 115J6Section 806Depreciation6Section 36(1)(iii)5Section 14A4Section 40

SALIM ABDULLAH RATHOD,MUNDRA vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, for statistical purposes

ITA 277/RJT/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 277/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) Salim Abdullah Rathod, Dy Commissioner Of Income Tax, 6316, Swami Vivekanand Nagar New Vs. Gandhidham Kutch, Gujarat Swaminarayan Temple Road Bhutda 370465 Wadi, Gujarat, 370465 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adnpp3110E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Gohil, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147

assessment proceedings it was noticed that the assessee was wilfully and deliberately avoiding to submit the depreciation chart along-with the rate of depreciation claimed in accordance with the provisions of the IT Act. On perusal of the depreciation chart it was noticed that the assessee has claimed depreciation 30% on plant & machinery as against normal depreciation allowable

4
Deduction4
Section 143(2)3

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. GANDHI REALITY (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 110/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, Ld. CIT. (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 230

assessing officer that the Amendments made by Finance Act, 2021 in relation to depreciation on Goodwill, being prospective in nature, makes it clear that the depreciation on goodwill Gandhi Reality(I) Pvt. Ltd claimed by the assessee forming part of its block

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(2),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S S. KUMAR,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 362/RJT/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: 10/05/2022For Respondent: Bhavna Yashroy, CIT.DR

Assessing Officer (AO) ITA No. 362/Rjt/2015 a/w. CO No. 56/Rjt/2015 [M/s. S. Kumar] A.Y. 2010-11 - 2 - under s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2010-11. 2. The grievances, in Revenue’s appeal and assessee’s Cross Objection, raised being common, both the cases were heard together and disposed of by the common

SAURASHTA CEMENT LTD.,,PORBANDAR vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 457/RJT/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 14ASection 40Section 40A(9)

depreciation claim the assessee company has not reduced this amount of Rs.3,20,00,000/- from the Plant & Machinery block of assets. Thus, the Ld. DR submitted that Assessee Company’s action to transfer this amount to capital reserve without showing it in operative part of Profit & Loss account is highly irregular. The Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2,, JAMNAGAR vs. SAURASHTRA CEMENT LTD.,, PORBANDAR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 476/RJT/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 14ASection 40Section 40A(9)

depreciation claim the assessee company has not reduced this amount of Rs.3,20,00,000/- from the Plant & Machinery block of assets. Thus, the Ld. DR submitted that Assessee Company’s action to transfer this amount to capital reserve without showing it in operative part of Profit & Loss account is highly irregular. The Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment

M/S. SEASTEM LTD.,RAJKOT vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 301/RJT/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 301/Rjt/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2010-2011 Seastem Ltd., D.C.I.T., First Floor, Vs. Circle-1, Royal Corner, Jamnagar. Dr. Yagnik Road, Rajkot. Pan: Aahcs9428G

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 147(1)Section 148

block of assets in Ships in depreciation statement. Hence, an amount of Rs.4, 75.49S/- debited to the P&L Account was required to be added back while computing total income from business and profession but the same was not added back. In view of the above, you are hereby show cause as to why an amount

SEABIRD MARINE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMNAGAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, JAMNAGAR, JAMANGAR

In the result, ground No.4 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 83/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 May 2025AY 2017-18
Section 114Section 115JSection 143(3)

depreciation which would be required to be set off\nagainst the profit of the relevant previous year as if the provisions of clause (b) of the first\nproviso to sub-section (1) of section 205 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), are\napplicable.\n(2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall affect the determination of the amounts

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 366/RJT/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. C. Thacker, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia,Ld.CIT (DR)
Section 36(1)(iii)

blocked in fixed assets in making the disallowance. The ld Counsel further submitted that the disallowance is made by the assessing officer invoking section 36 (1) (iii) of the Act, however, from the data furnished it would be seen that the assessee has EPC/PCFC loans taken against the stock and export receivables and mortgage loan against the property, the assessee

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 234/RJT/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. C. Thacker, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia,Ld.CIT (DR)
Section 36(1)(iii)

blocked in fixed assets in making the disallowance. The ld Counsel further submitted that the disallowance is made by the assessing officer invoking section 36 (1) (iii) of the Act, however, from the data furnished it would be seen that the assessee has EPC/PCFC loans taken against the stock and export receivables and mortgage loan against the property, the assessee

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 235/RJT/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. C. Thacker, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia,Ld.CIT (DR)
Section 36(1)(iii)

blocked in fixed assets in making the disallowance. The ld Counsel further submitted that the disallowance is made by the assessing officer invoking section 36 (1) (iii) of the Act, however, from the data furnished it would be seen that the assessee has EPC/PCFC loans taken against the stock and export receivables and mortgage loan against the property, the assessee

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 236/RJT/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. C. Thacker, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia,Ld.CIT (DR)
Section 36(1)(iii)

blocked in fixed assets in making the disallowance. The ld Counsel further submitted that the disallowance is made by the assessing officer invoking section 36 (1) (iii) of the Act, however, from the data furnished it would be seen that the assessee has EPC/PCFC loans taken against the stock and export receivables and mortgage loan against the property, the assessee

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 233/RJT/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. C. Thacker, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia,Ld.CIT (DR)
Section 36(1)(iii)

blocked in fixed assets in making the disallowance. The ld Counsel further submitted that the disallowance is made by the assessing officer invoking section 36 (1) (iii) of the Act, however, from the data furnished it would be seen that the assessee has EPC/PCFC loans taken against the stock and export receivables and mortgage loan against the property, the assessee

ASHVIN DINESHBHAI JADAV,RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 428/RJT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

Block No.62, Quarter No.377, Gujarat Rajkot, Aayakar Bhavan, Race Vs. Housing Board, 6-Naandi Park, b/h Course Ring Road, SNK School, university Road, Rajkot-360 001 Rajkot-360 005 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AKXPJ 8016 E (Assessee) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Mehul Ranpura, AR राज" की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav

THE ASSTT. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CEN. CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S BACKBONE ENTERPRISES LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 147/RJT/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Sept 2022AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT-D.R
Section 153ASection 80Section 80I

depreciated value of plant and equipment as may be determined by the .Engineer. This advance shall be further subject to the condition that: (i) such , plant and equipment are considered by the Engineer to be necessary for the-Works, (ii) such plant and equipment are in working order, and (iii) the Contractor provides an unconditional bank guarantee by a bank

BACKBONE ENTERPRISE LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DY. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CEN. CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 126/RJT/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Sept 2022AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT-D.R
Section 153ASection 80Section 80I

depreciated value of plant and equipment as may be determined by the .Engineer. This advance shall be further subject to the condition that: (i) such , plant and equipment are considered by the Engineer to be necessary for the-Works, (ii) such plant and equipment are in working order, and (iii) the Contractor provides an unconditional bank guarantee by a bank