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.

2 results for “depreciation”+ Section 1aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai382Delhi269Bangalore197Chennai141Ahmedabad61Jaipur55Chandigarh47Kolkata40Pune31Cochin26Raipur23Hyderabad21Karnataka19Surat15SC15Indore11Nagpur7Telangana6Cuttack6Panaji5Jodhpur4Amritsar3Visakhapatnam2Guwahati2Rajkot2Varanasi2Lucknow1Agra1D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1Calcutta1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Orissa1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 50C6Section 362Section 115J2Section 143(1)2

APPANA HARI NAGA VENKATA RAO,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ITO,, VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 222/VIZ/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Feb 2019AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleappana Hari Naga Venkat Rao, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), D.No. 15-32-7, Gokul Road, Visakhapatnam. Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Adopa 5287 G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik – Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 50CSection 54

1A) of the Registration Act, 1908, if he failed to register such contract, then, he would not be able to protect his possession or any benefit conferred by section 53A of the TPA. Proviso appended to section 49 of the Indian Registration Act only postulates that such agreement could be tendered in evidence in a suit for specific performance

RAJAM POLYPACKS LIMITED,RAJAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SRIKAKULAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 258/VIZ/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.258/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Rajam Polypacks Limited Vs. Income Tax Officer Ponduru Road Ward-2 Rajam Srikakulam [Pan : Aabcr0489G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Ya Rao, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri On Hari Prasad Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 16.11.2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021-22/ 1036317185(1) Dated 12.10.2021 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018- 19. 2. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : 1. The Order Passed By Learned Commissioner (Appeals), Dated 12.10.2021 Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.56,448/- & Rs.2,53,947/- By Invoking Provisions Of Sec.36(1A) R.W.S. 43(B) Of I.T.Act Is Illegal & Unjust After Relying On The Amendment Brought By Finance Act, 2021 To Sec.36(5A) R.W.S. (43B).

For Appellant: Shri YA Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri ON Hari Prasad Rao, DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 36

1a) r.w.s. 43(b) of I.T.Act is illegal and unjust after relying on the amendment brought by Finance Act, 2021 to Sec.36(5A) r.w.s. (43b). 2 I.T.A. No.258/Viz/2021, A.Y. 2018-19 Rajam Polypacks (Ltd.)., Rajam 2. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) is not justified in not considering ground number 6, wherein the Appellant claimed that book profits liable