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 255(7)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi380Mumbai371Bangalore132Chennai126Kolkata71Chandigarh51Ahmedabad40Jaipur32Hyderabad23Pune20Amritsar12Raipur9Cochin9Surat9Karnataka9Lucknow9Cuttack8Guwahati8SC6Rajkot6Telangana3Dehradun3Nagpur3Panaji3Visakhapatnam2Jodhpur2Punjab & Haryana1Indore1Gauhati1Calcutta1

Key Topics

Section 10B7Section 115J5Section 260A4

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s Matrix Power Pvt Ltd.,

ITTA/386/2013HC Telangana03 Sept 2013
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 260A

7) of section 10B provides that the provisions of sub-section (8) and sub-section (10) of section 80-IA shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the undertaking referred to in the section as they apply for the purposes of an undertaking referred to in section 80-IA. A similar provision corresponding to sub- section

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. Hetero Labs Ltd

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

ITTA/356/2014HC Telangana08 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 115J
Section 260
Section 260A
Section 41(1)

255 ITR 273 (SC), and 'INDO RAMA SYNTHETICS (I) LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX', 330 ITR 363. 9 6. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The relevant extract of Section 115JB, which deals with special provisions for payment of tax by certain companies as it was in existence

AP. STATE SEEDS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, HYD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, HYD.

ITTA/232/2006HC Telangana21 Dec 2022

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

For Appellant: SRl. C. P. RAMASWAMIFor Respondent: Ms. K. MAMATACHOUDARY SENIOR SC FOR
Section 1Section 115JSection 260A

255 ITR 273 (SC). We, therefore, find no merit in the submission of the assessee and uphold the order ofthe ld. CIT [A). 9. Thus, Tribuna-l held that appellant had adjusted prior period of expenses of Rs.3,09,504.00 from the net profit Iigure of Rs.3,42,726.OO to arrive at the figure of Rs.33