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(8)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi377Mumbai364Bangalore132Chennai125Kolkata71Chandigarh51Ahmedabad40Jaipur33Hyderabad23Pune20Amritsar12Raipur9Cochin9Surat9Karnataka9Lucknow9Cuttack8Guwahati8SC6Rajkot6Telangana3Dehradun3Nagpur3Panaji3Visakhapatnam2Jodhpur2Punjab & 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

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 (5) of section 80-IA is to be found in 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)

8 expenditure on accrual basis, however, no provision was created and therefore, no adjustment was made in view of Clause (c) to Explanation 1 to Section 115JB of the Act. It is also argued that unless Clause (c) is attracted, Clause (i) for reduction also cannot be applied. It is further submitted that the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner of Income

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

8. On further appeal before the Tribunal it was held as follows: 3. We have heard both the parties and perused the record. As has been noted at page-2 of the CIT(A)'s order, the appellant in its annual account has worked out net profit at a figure of Rs.3,42,7 26. From this, it has claimed