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.

11 results for “depreciation”+ Disallowanceclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai5,575Delhi4,550Chennai1,970Bangalore1,687Ahmedabad1,236Kolkata1,224Pune709Hyderabad547Jaipur490Chandigarh316Cochin258Surat220Karnataka210Indore204Raipur202Visakhapatnam182Cuttack174Amritsar149Rajkot106Lucknow94Nagpur87Ranchi78Jodhpur65Guwahati62Telangana45SC44Dehradun40Panaji37Kerala33Agra27Patna27Calcutta22Allahabad19Jabalpur14Varanasi11Punjab & Haryana9Rajasthan7Orissa7ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Tripura1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 40A(3)31Section 14810Addition to Income9Section 143(3)8Disallowance7Section 80P(2)(a)6Survey u/s 133A5Deduction5Section 133A4Section 14A

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA HUF,VARANASI vs. ACIT, CC, VARANASI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 119/VNS/2019[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi23 Mar 2022AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2014-15 Vinod Kumar Gupta (Huf), V. Acit, 20, Raghunath Nagar, Mahmoorganj, Central Circle, Varanasi Varanasi, U.P. Pan-Aabhv1586P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Mr. O.P. Shukla, Adv Respondent By: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 23.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.03.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Mr. O.P. Shukla, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R

disallowance of depreciation on vehicle on the ground of personal use. The Assessing Officer has disallowed a part depreciation as one of the vehicles

ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, GORAKHPUR vs. BAJRANG BAHADUR SINGH, GORAKHPUR

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 49/VNS/2018[2012-2013]Status: HeardITAT Varanasi
4
Section 44
Depreciation4
31 May 2022
AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13 The Assistant Shri Bajrang Bahadur Singh, Commissioner Of Income V. Marhatha, Campierganj, Tax,Circle-1, Gorakhpur-273001, Uttar Aayakarbhawan, Civil Pradesh Lines, Gorakhpur 273001, Uttar Pradesh Pan:Afxps6284G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: ShriRamendra Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)

disallowance of depreciation of Rs.3,37,520/- which was wrongly mentioned in his order at Rs.33,75,200/-. 5. The appellant

DCIT,, GORAKHPUR vs. M/S MAHABIR JITE MILLS, LTD., GORAKHPUR

In the result, (i) the appeal of the assessee for AY 2009-10 is partly allowed and for AY 2020-21 is treated as allowed

ITA 448/ALLD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi16 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 4Section 40A(3)

disallowed the above said expenses of Rs.29,91,430/- and allowed depreciation @ 10%. Hence the net disallowance made by the AO worked

THE MAHABIR JUTE MILLS LTD.,GORAKHPUR vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, (i) the appeal of the assessee for AY 2009-10 is partly allowed and for AY 2020-21 is treated as allowed

ITA 13/VNS/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi16 Nov 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 4Section 40A(3)

disallowed the above said expenses of Rs.29,91,430/- and allowed depreciation @ 10%. Hence the net disallowance made by the AO worked

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2 , GORAKHPUR vs. THE MAHABIR JUTE MILLS LIMITED, GORAKHPUR

In the result, (i) the appeal of the assessee for AY 2009-10 is partly allowed and for AY 2020-21 is treated as allowed

ITA 217/ALLD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi16 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 4Section 40A(3)

disallowed the above said expenses of Rs.29,91,430/- and allowed depreciation @ 10%. Hence the net disallowance made by the AO worked

THE MAHABIR JUTE MILLS LIMITED,GORAKHPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2 , GORAKHPUR

In the result, (i) the appeal of the assessee for AY 2009-10 is partly allowed and for AY 2020-21 is treated as allowed

ITA 351/ALLD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi16 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 4Section 40A(3)

disallowed the above said expenses of Rs.29,91,430/- and allowed depreciation @ 10%. Hence the net disallowance made by the AO worked

OBEETEE TEXTILES PVT. LTD.,MIRZAPUR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTER, DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9/VNS/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi22 Nov 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Br Baskaran & Shri Amit Shuklaobeetee Textiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. National Faceless 93, Ward-9, Assessment Centre, Bisunderpur, Civil Lines, Delhi Mirzapur, Uttarpradesh-231312 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaaco2596C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. S. K. GargFor Respondent: Shri. A. K. Singh
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

depreciation and delete the short disallowance of ₹ 3,39,505/-. 5. The next issue relates to deposits made in government

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, SULTANPUR vs. M/S KANPUR KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 298/ALLD/2008[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi26 Sept 2023AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2000-01 Dcit, Vs M/S Baroda Up Bank Circle-1, (Earlier Known As Kanpur Kshatriya Gorakhpur. Gramin Bank & Since Amalgamated With Baroda Up Bank) Gorakhpur. Pan: Aabck0383Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Garg, Ca Revenue By : Shri Robin Chaudhary, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2023 Order Per B.R. Baskaran, Am: The Revenue Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Order Dated 02.07.2008 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-Ii, Kanpur & It Relates To The Assessment Year 2000-01. The Only Ground Raised By The Revenue Reads As Under:- “That The Ld.Cit(Appeal) Ii, Kanpur Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Entire Income Of The Assesse As Exempt & Without Appreciating That The Addition By The Ao On The Points Of Depreciation, Gratuity, P.F., Penalty Provisions For Npa & Disallowance Of Share Capital Deposits Are Not Covered U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) Of The I.T. Act.” 2. We Have Heard The Parties & Perused The Record. The Assesse Was Earlier Known As Kanpur Kshatriya Gramin Bank. It Has Been Amalgamated Into Baroda U.P. Bank. The Assessee Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Declaring Nil Income After Claiming Deduction U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) Of The Act. The Ao Took The View That The Assessee Is Not Eligible For The Above-Said Deduction For The Reason That The Assessee Had Engaged Itself During The Year In Normal Banking Business. Accordingly, He Rejected The Claim For Deduction U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) Of The Act. The Ao Also Made Various Additions To The Business Income Returned By The Assessee. The Assessee Had Declared A Net Profit Of Rs.5.69 Crores & The Ao Computed Total Income At Rs.10.85 Crores.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Robin Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 80P(2)(a)

depreciation, gratuity, P.F., penalty provisions for NPA and disallowance of share capital deposits are not covered u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the I.T. Act.” 2. We have

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 01,, VARANASI vs. M/S RATANDEEP GOLD & DIAMOND PVT. LTD., CHANDAULI

ITA 136/VNS/2020[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi03 Feb 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner M/S Ratandeep Gold & Diamond Of Income Tax, V. Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1, M A Road, 19, New Mohal, Varanasi-211001, U.P. Near Balika Inter College, Mugalsarai, Chandauli- 232101, U.P. Pan:Aahcr4764Q (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 02/Vns/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 136/Vns/2020) Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Ratandeep Gold & The Deputy Commissioner Of Diamond Pvt. Ltd. V. Income Tax,Circle-1, M.A. Road 19, New Mohal, Varanasi-211001, U.P. Near Balika Inter College, Mugalsarai, Chandauli- 232101, U.P.

For Appellant: Shri Shishir Bajpai, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 69A

depreciation of Rs. 5,70,537/-). Hence, the remaining AY:2017-18 DCIT , Circle-1, Varanasi , U.P. v. M/s. Ratandeep Gold & Diamond Pvt. Ltd.,Chandauli,U.P. expenses debited after date of survey viz. 05.10.2017 were disallowed

MOUSAMI CHOUDHURY,VARANASI vs. DY. CIT, RANGE - 02,, VARANASI

In the result , the appeal filed the assessee in ITA No

ITA 214/VNS/2019[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi28 Dec 2022AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh.ArvindShukla, Adv. & Sh. AsimZafar, AdvFor Respondent: ShriA.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144rSection 147Section 148

disallowance of loss claimed, if return of the previous year for which set off of loss is claimed was furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; (iv) disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return; (v) disallowance of deduction claimed under

MOUSAMI CHOUDHURY,VARANASI vs. DY. CIT, RANGE - 2, VARANASI

In the result , the appeal filed the assessee in ITA No

ITA 213/VNS/2019[201-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi28 Dec 2022

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh.ArvindShukla, Adv. & Sh. AsimZafar, AdvFor Respondent: ShriA.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144rSection 147Section 148

disallowance of loss claimed, if return of the previous year for which set off of loss is claimed was furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; (iv) disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return; (v) disallowance of deduction claimed under