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.

3 results for “depreciation”+ Section 234Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi328Mumbai199Bangalore113Jaipur47Chennai28Ahmedabad27Kolkata14Ranchi13Lucknow13Hyderabad10Indore8Pune7Dehradun7Guwahati6Nagpur4Surat3Rajkot3SC3Agra2Jodhpur2Patna2Punjab & Haryana1Panaji1Cochin1Chandigarh1Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 143(2)3Section 115J2Section 922

MANSAROVAR COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI

C.A. No.-005769-005769 - 2022Supreme Court10 Apr 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

Section 26Section 6(3)

depreciation allowance” in Section 147 after the conditions for reassessment are satisfied, is only relatable to the preceding expression in clauses (a) and (b) viz., “escaped assessment”. The term “escaped assessment” includes both “non-assessment” as well as “under assessment”. Income is said to have “escaped assessment” within the meaning of this section when it has not been charged

VODAFONE IDEA LTD(EARLIER KNOWN AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 26 (2)

C.A. No.-002377-002377 - 2020Supreme Court29 Apr 2020

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 143(2)
Section 244A
Section 92

depreciation as claimed and by taxing the interest income of Rs.1,07,85,590 as income from other sources and thus raised the demand of Rs. 1,30,83,741 under various heads and sections of taxes, surcharge and additional tax under Sections 143(1A), 234A

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI vs. TULSYAN NEC LTD

C.A. No.-010677-010679 - 2010Supreme Court16 Dec 2010
Section 115J

234A, B and C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 3. At the outset, it may be stated that there is no dispute in regard to eligibility of the assessee for set off of tax paid under Section 115JA. The dispute is only in regard to priority of adjustment for the MAT credit. 4. To answer the above