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”+ Deemed Dividendclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai937Delhi501Chennai271Bangalore240Kolkata208Ahmedabad100Chandigarh53Raipur39Jaipur37Hyderabad35Pune26Lucknow23Cochin19Karnataka17SC14Surat13Indore13Nagpur10Telangana8Guwahati7Cuttack6Visakhapatnam3Rajkot2Jodhpur2Calcutta2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 2636Section 115J6Section 143(3)5

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)

dividend_u/s\n2(22)(d) of the Act, despite the fact that capital reduction is carried out for NIL\nconsideration.\n(v). considering transaction of capital reduction of assessee- company, as buy back to\nbe covered u/s 115QA, despite the fact that capital reduction is carried out for NIL\nconsideration.\n4. Grounds of Appeal in relation to computation of deduction

SAURASHTRA GRAMIN BANK MANAGER (F & A), RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I,, RAJKOT

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

ITA 37/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot
30 Sept 2025
AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 37/Rjt/2022 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Saurashtra Gramin Bank Vs. The Pr. Cit-1, Manager (F & A), Rajkot 1St Floor Wing 2, Lic Jeevan Prakash Building, Tagore Road, Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahas2116H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. A.D. Vyas, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(viii)Section 37(1)

deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, if the order is passed allowing any relief without inquiring into the claim. However, the assessing officer did not conduct any such inquiries or verification and simply accepted the assessee's claims. In this manner, the assessee's case is also covered under