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 246Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai28Chennai24Delhi18Bangalore15Amritsar13Chandigarh11Indore7Nagpur6Pune5Jaipur4Raipur4Panaji4Visakhapatnam2Kolkata2Patna1Dehradun1SC1Ahmedabad1

Key Topics

Section 2634Limitation/Time-bar2Condonation of Delay2

THE KRISHNA DISTRICT MILK PRODUCERS MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OPERATIVE UNION LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , VIJAYAWADA

ITA 43/VIZ/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, FCAFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Sonawal, CIT DR
Section 263

246A of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) further observed that the jurisdiction to examine the merits of the specific direction given by the Pr.CIT in the order u/sec. 263 of the Act lies only with the Hon'ble Tribunal. The ld. CIT(A) while holding that the ld. CIT(A) has no jurisdiction to examine and adjudicate the ground

THE KRISHNA DISTRICT MILK PRODUCERS MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OPERATIVE UNION LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), , VIJAYAWADA

ITA 42/VIZ/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, FCAFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Sonawal, CIT DR
Section 263

246A of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) further observed that the jurisdiction to examine the merits of the specific direction given by the Pr.CIT in the order u/sec. 263 of the Act lies only with the Hon'ble Tribunal. The ld. CIT(A) while holding that the ld. CIT(A) has no jurisdiction to examine and adjudicate the ground