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.

8 results for “depreciation”+ Cash Depositclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai904Delhi764Bangalore229Chennai171Kolkata159Jaipur148Ahmedabad144Hyderabad107Raipur87Chandigarh85Amritsar65Pune51Surat47Visakhapatnam35Indore34Cochin32Lucknow28Rajkot19Cuttack13Nagpur13Allahabad10Agra9Telangana8Guwahati7SC7Jodhpur6Karnataka6Ranchi5Patna4Panaji3Varanasi3Jabalpur2Dehradun2Calcutta2

Key Topics

Section 2605Addition to Income4Section 13(1)(e)3Section 13(2)2Section 143(1)2Section 252Section 12A2Section 42Exemption2

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

In the result we do not find any merit in the appeal

ITTA/242/2011HC Telangana27 Jun 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260Section 260A

depreciation. It has further been held that computer is integral part of ATM machine and on the basis of information processed by the computer in ATM machine only, the mechanical function of the dispensation of cash or deposit

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III, HYD vs. M/S. SUJANA METALS LTD, HYD

ITTA/549/2011HC Telangana21 Apr 2025

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Section 260Section 28

cash or kind, under an agreement for not carrying out any activity in relation to any business or not sharing any know-how, patent etc. ITA 549/2011 Page 6 of 16 would be treated as business income since the assessee had received the amount for carrying out any activity in relation to the business of the assessee as publication

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/s Padmapriya Real Estates AND Financiers

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment passed by

ITTA/478/2006HC Telangana10 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 13(1)(e)Section 13(2)Section 313

cash amount of Rs. 13465/- was seized at the time of raid in the house of the appellant. The total 49.700gm golden ornaments amounting to Rs. 20,622/- was also considered as expenses of the appellant. The total Rs. 873gm silver ornaments amounting Rs. 5900/- was also considered to be the expenditure of the appellant. The luxury items worth

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III, vs. M/S. SAVIJANA SEA FOODS PVT. LTD.,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITTA/55/2010HC Telangana20 Dec 2024

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

Section 260

depreciation, reserves, etc., a part of it should in all fairness go to the employees.” 30. In the said case the Supreme Court was considering whether payment for ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 17 of 36 the extra services rendered by an employee could be allowed as business expenditure. It was held that for the purposes of allowing commercial

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Kokivenkateswara Reddy AND others,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITTA/210/2003HC Telangana21 Jun 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

Section 260

depreciation, reserves, etc., a part of it should in all fairness go to the employees.” 30. In the said case the Supreme Court was considering whether payment for ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 17 of 36 the extra services rendered by an employee could be allowed as business expenditure. It was held that for the purposes of allowing commercial

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri P.Sarveswara Rao

Appeals are partly allowed, in view of the

ITTA/434/2005HC Telangana14 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 221Section 4

depreciation and not the grant of deduction in respect of Sales-tax collections which had not been paid in accordance with the provisions of sec.43-B of the IT Act. (e) No objection on the issue whether the assessee‟s industrial undertaking was set up in a backward area, notified by the Central Govt. for the purpose of benefit under provisions

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. M/s Indur Green Power Private Limited

In the result, all the appeals fail and are hereby

ITTA/627/2015HC Telangana02 Jun 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 2(15)Section 25Section 260Section 80G(5)

Depreciation 1,05,72,696 1,10,86,334 1,26,18,427 1,39,66,450 Total Expenditure 4,81,29,896 4,75,41,722 5,01,63,902 3,88,21,912 Profit for the year 2,53,21,438 2,09,87,242 62,58,319 836236 Add Balance brought forward

Shri Maneklal Agarwal vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are allowed and

ITTA/2/2005HC Telangana25 Feb 2015

Bench: A RAMALINGESWARA RAO,DILIP B. BHOSALE

cash all the time and his financial capacity has to be seen and thus plaintiff can be said to have taken benefit of the 90% balance with him. It is well to be remembered at this stage that in a way that part of Specific Relief Act dealing with specific performance is in the nature of exception to Section