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 37(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,738Delhi2,533Bangalore1,020Chennai896Kolkata504Ahmedabad414Hyderabad235Jaipur211Chandigarh153Raipur150Pune114Surat99Indore97Karnataka83Amritsar75Visakhapatnam68Cochin55Cuttack51Lucknow41Ranchi40Rajkot39SC35Nagpur26Telangana24Jodhpur24Guwahati23Kerala20Patna16Dehradun15Allahabad13Panaji13Calcutta10Agra9Varanasi3Jabalpur2Punjab & Haryana2Rajasthan2MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1Tripura1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 14810Section 143(3)3Section 2633Section 40A(3)3Section 144r2Section 1442Section 143(2)2Section 1472

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

1) and no assessment was originally framed by Revenue u/s 143(3). Thus , first proviso to Section 147 is not applicable. Further , the income of the assessee allegedly escaping assessment was Rs.1,37,00,000/- based on the information received by AO from ADIT(Inv.) , Kolkatta , and the AO had reasons to believe that the income of the assessee

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

1) and no assessment was originally framed by Revenue u/s 143(3). Thus , first proviso to Section 147 is not applicable. Further , the income of the assessee allegedly escaping assessment was Rs.1,37,00,000/- based on the information received by AO from ADIT(Inv.) , Kolkatta , and the AO had reasons to believe that the income of the assessee

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 Varanasi31 May 2022AY 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)

1,81,47,450/- towards labour payments stood added by the AO to the income of the assessee , vide assessment order dated 12.12.2017 passed by AO u/s 143(3) read with Section 263 of the 1961 Act. 5.3 There were other addition being made by the AO to the tune of Rs. 3,37,200/- on account of disallowance