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 94(7)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,445Delhi1,087Bangalore487Chennai393Kolkata233Ahmedabad221Jaipur97Hyderabad87Raipur64Indore58Pune53Chandigarh44Visakhapatnam31Surat30Cuttack28Lucknow25Cochin22Karnataka21Jodhpur13SC12Rajkot9Guwahati6Allahabad5Nagpur5Telangana5Amritsar4Patna4Punjab & Haryana2Kerala2Dehradun2Calcutta2Ranchi2Jabalpur1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Orissa1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)10Section 80I10Addition to Income7Section 36(1)(viii)6Section 115J6Section 806Section 2634Section 2713Section 271(1)(c)3Disallowance

SHRI RAJKOT DISTRICT CO-OP. BANK LTD. RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 26/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: us, the error noted in the assessment order passed in the case of the assessee under Section 143(3) of the Act for the impugned year i.e. AY 2017-18 was that the assessee’s claim of deduction for creation of special reserve from the profit of “eligible business” as per Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act had been allowed in excess by the Assessing Officer without properly examining the calculation of the claim submitted by the assessee.

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 28Section 36(1)(viii)

7. It was also pointed out that Department’s appeal against the order passed by the learned CIT(A) approving the assessee’s basis of computing profits from its eligible business for the purpose of creation of special reserve under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act had been dismissed by the ITAT on account of the tax effect being

3
Deduction3

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, JAMNAGAR vs. M/S. SENOR METALS PVT. LTD., JAMNAGAR

In the results the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 260/RJT/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kambleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 260/Rjt/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Dushyant Maharshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Pratap Singh, C.I.T.D.R
Section 36Section 40Section 43(5)

94 627 1 14 92 283 Repairs & maintenance 3 40 882 25 61 698 Other mfg. expenses 58 76 989 49 00 203 7 50 40 850 5 55 74 943 Credit of Wind farm on Units Generated 1 05 91 915 1 15 89 169 Depreciation Related

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

7,16,94,222/-. The project was to be completed within a period of 12 months and free maintenance was for a period of 60 months after completion of the project. The terms and conditions of the contract were similar to those as mentioned in the contracts entered by the government or by its agencies for developing any infrastructure facility

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

7,16,94,222/-. The project was to be completed within a period of 12 months and free maintenance was for a period of 60 months after completion of the project. The terms and conditions of the contract were similar to those as mentioned in the contracts entered by the government or by its agencies for developing any infrastructure facility

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

94,800/- (loss) MCDX Rs.18,63,380/- (loss) FNO Rs.8,54,942/- (loss) Total Rs.34,80,931/- (loss incurred) The assessing officer noticed that assessee has incurred an aggregate loss of Rs. 34,80,931/-, on securities transactions. In light of this necessary clarification w.r.t investment/transaction carried out with M/s Angel Broking Pvt Ltd, called for from the assessee. 4.In

SHRI JAYANTILAL P. SATIKUNVER,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 469/RJT/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.469/Rjt/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2010-11)

For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Jain, CIT. D.R
Section 143(3)

depreciation allocated in the ratio of turnover of both the business of the assessee and worked out a sum of - 7,52,199 which was to be allocated to the windmill business. As such learned CIT directed the AO to make the addition for a sum of - 7,52,199.00 to the total income of the assessee by observing

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)

94\nTaxman164 (SC) (ii) CIT vs. Narasiman (1999) 236 ITR 327 (SC) (iii) PCIT vs.\nJuptiter Capital (P.) Ltd. [1981] 170 taxmann.com 305 (SC) (iv) Vazir Sultan\nTobacoo Co. Ltd. [1981] 7 Taxman 28 (SC) (v) Southern Technologies Ltd. vs.\nJCIT 320 ITR 577 (SC) (vi) Vijaya Bank vs. CIT 323 ITR 166 (SC) (vii) PCIT\nvs. Torrent

ANUP A. SHAH,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

ITA 106/RJT/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Mar 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 106/Rjt/2017 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Asstt. Years: 2005-2006 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agrawal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A

depreciation Rs.10,208/- Total confirmed additions Rs.21,71,700/- 8. Accordingly, the AO issued fresh show notice proposing to levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the addition confirmed by the learned CIT(A) for concealment of income. The assessee in reply only submitted that penalty proceedings were initiated without jurisdiction. Hence, the same

KRISHNA CONSTRUCTION CO,TALALA, JUNAGADH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT

In the result, ground no.2(e ) raised by the assessee, is partly allowed

ITA 608/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.608/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2018-19 Krishna Construction Co. The Dcit, Cir.1(1) बनाम Below Dr.Antalas Hospital Rajkot. Station Road, Talala (Gir) Vs. Junagadh. Pan : Aaifk 8897 P (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri R.D. Lalchandani, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 22/01/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28/03/2025 Order Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini:

For Appellant: Shri R.D. Lalchandani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 250Section 40

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The disallowance is not justified, [e] The disallowance of Rs. 69,40,248/- being 20% on ad hoc basis out of direct expenses. The disallowance is not justified.” 3. The first grievance of the assessee, is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance made by the assessing officer