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 36(1)(viia)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai161Chennai78Bangalore75Delhi49Chandigarh42Kolkata18Hyderabad17Karnataka12Pune10Cochin8Jodhpur8Ahmedabad6Jaipur4Telangana3Nagpur3Kerala2Lucknow2Rajkot2SC2Surat2Cuttack1Raipur1Indore1

Key Topics

Section 36(1)(viia)6Section 14A2Deduction2Depreciation2

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

In the result, the appeal (ITA/70/2011) is allowed to the extent indicated

ITTA/70/2011HC Telangana18 Apr 2011

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 20Th March, 2023 Appearance : Mr. C. Bhaskaran, Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. …For The Appellant. Mr. Aryak Dutt, Adv. …For The Respondent.. The Court : - This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated September 30, 2009 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench, Kolkata In Ita No.2486/Kol/2007 For The Assessment Year 2003-2004. The Appeal Was Admitted On 18.03.2011 On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law:- “1. Whether The Tribunal Below, While Interpreting Section 36(1)(Viia)(A) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, Committed Substantial Error Of Law In Holding That Deduction Under The First Proviso Was Alternative To That Under Sub-Clause (A) & That No Deduction Under The First Proviso Was Allowable If Deduction Had Been Allowed Under Sub-Clause (A) Thereby Rejecting The Appellant’S

Section 115JSection 14ASection 260ASection 36(1)(viia)

36(1)(viia)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, committed substantial error of law in holding that deduction under the first proviso was alternative to that under sub-clause (a) and that no deduction under the first proviso was allowable if deduction had been allowed under sub-clause (a) thereby rejecting the appellant’s 2 claim for deduction

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

ITTA/226/2011HC Telangana27 Jun 2011

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

Section 14A(1)Section 260

36(1)(viia) of the Act when the provisions of this Section does not permit such an action? iv. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal preferred by the revenue by holding that the depreciation

The Commissioner of income Tax-II vs. M/s.Ideal Industrial Explosives Ltd

ITTA/100/2010HC Telangana01 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

For Appellant: M/S. CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD., THRISSURFor Respondent: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRICHUR

1) which reads: “(g) the amount or amounts set aside as provision for diminution in the value of any asset” is not disallowance of Rs.8,61,53,052/- towards provision for bad debts made under section 36(ii) (viia) while calculating the book profit under section 115JA in accordance with law?” In fact, the specific stand of the Assessing Officer