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.

6 results for “depreciation”+ Section 112clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai584Delhi542Bangalore251Chennai95Ahmedabad91Chandigarh75Jaipur63Kolkata52Raipur43Amritsar34Hyderabad25Indore24Lucknow19Pune17Guwahati17Karnataka16Visakhapatnam16Surat15Rajkot11SC6Jodhpur4Cochin4Agra4Telangana4Cuttack3Nagpur2

Key Topics

Section 322Section 1122Exemption2Deduction2Penalty2

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MAHENDRA MILLS

The appeal is dismissed

C.A. No.-005394-005394 - 1994Supreme Court15 Mar 2000
For Respondent: MAHENDRA MILLS
Section 32Section 34Section 72Section 73

section 34 of the Act does not require that the particulars should be furnished along with the return. Therefore, once the particulars regarding the grant of depreciation are available, it is open to the Income-tax Officer to grant depreciation, even if the assessee had withdrawn the claim in the revised return." In Hopeville Estate vs. State of Tamil Nadu

COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS (GENERAL), N. DELHI vs. GUJARAT PERSTORP ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeals are allowed

C.A. No.-008568-008569 - 2001
Supreme Court
05 Aug 2005
For Respondent: M/s. Gujarat Perstorp Electronics Ltd
Section 28(1)

112 of the Customs Act, 1962. 55. The penalties shall be paid forthwith." Being aggrieved by the Order in Original passed by the Commissioner of Customs, five appeals came to be registered before CEGAT. One appeal was preferred by the Company against the decision of the Commissioner holding that the goods were liable to payment of custom duty

COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PARASRAMPURIA SYNTHETICS LTD

C.A. No.-007303-007306 - 2000Supreme Court30 Aug 2001
For Respondent: M/S. PARASRAMPURIA SYNTHETICS LTD
Section 112

112 of the Customs Act and further penalty of Rs.5 lakhs each on three of the Directors of the Company being the importer herein and hence the appeal before the Tribunal (CEGAT). The Tribunal however, on a detailed judgment came to the conclusion that the materials imported by the appellant are books coming under Tariff item 49.01 and thus coming

COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI vs. M/S. BUREAU VERITAS

C.A. No.-000808-000811 - 2004Supreme Court14 Feb 2005
For Respondent: M/s. Bureau Veritas and Ors
Section 111Section 112Section 28

section 112(a) of the Act were imposed on Bureau Veritas and Jean Paul Rabier. The Commissioner found that the transaction value in terms of Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Determination of Price of Imported Goods Rules, 1988 (in short the ‘Rules’) of the rig was the price paid for its purchase in March 1999 by the importer

THE INDIAN TUBE COMPANY LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

C.A. No.-001254-001254 - 1976Supreme Court14 Jan 1992
For Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CALCUTTA
Section 18Section 256(1)Section 261

112 1992 SCALE (1)26 ACT: Companies (Profit) Sur Tax Act, 1964 Sections-2 (b), 4,18-Payment of dividend-Recommendation of Board of Directors-Whether reserve-Whether to be taken into consideration for computation of capital. HEADNOTE: This appeal arises out of proceedings initiated to compute the capital of the appellant-company for the purpose

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

C.A. No.-021762-021762 - 2017Supreme Court19 Oct 2022

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 12AA(1) of the IT Act, on 18.05.1979 and is engaged in the activity of promotion of the export of all kind of ready-made garments, knitwear, and garments made of leather, jute and hemp. It does not per se engage in any activity for profit, and its mandate is to ensure that Indian apparel manufacturers, are given forums