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.

6 results for “depreciation”+ Section 253(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai601Delhi510Bangalore112Chennai95Kolkata75Ahmedabad68Chandigarh60Pune57Jaipur42Surat25Cuttack19Cochin18Lucknow18Hyderabad17Indore15Amritsar15Guwahati14Rajkot13Ranchi11Raipur8Panaji7Jodhpur6SC6Visakhapatnam6Telangana6Karnataka5Varanasi4Allahabad4Nagpur3Agra2Dehradun2Patna1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)8Section 36(1)(va)8Section 2534Section 1544Deduction4Disallowance4Addition to Income4Rectification u/s 1544Section 271(1)(c)

BHARAT HEAVY PLATE & VESSELS LIMITED, NOW KNOWN AS BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED (HPVP UNIT),VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue and both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 406/VIZ/2017[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Mar 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Hon’Ble & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddy, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri I. Kama Sastry – CAFor Respondent: Shri Deba Kumar Sonawal – CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 253Section 36(1)(va)

253 of the Act was passed by the Assessing Officer on 30/09/2011. Thereafter, on 22/05/2013, the Assessing Officer passed a rectification order under section 154 of the Act to make the following disallowances, which were omitted to be disallowed in the original assessment order. a) Employees contribution to provident fund pertaining to the period April 2004 to August

2
Penalty2

BHARAT HEAVY PLATE & VESSELS LIMITED, NOW KNOWN AS BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED (HPVP UNIT),VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue and both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 405/VIZ/2017[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Mar 2018AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Hon’Ble & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddy, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri I. Kama Sastry – CAFor Respondent: Shri Deba Kumar Sonawal – CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 253Section 36(1)(va)

253 of the Act was passed by the Assessing Officer on 30/09/2011. Thereafter, on 22/05/2013, the Assessing Officer passed a rectification order under section 154 of the Act to make the following disallowances, which were omitted to be disallowed in the original assessment order. a) Employees contribution to provident fund pertaining to the period April 2004 to August

ACIT, CIRCLE -1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. BHARAT HEAVY PLATE AND VESSELS LTD, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue and both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 438/VIZ/2017[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Mar 2018AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Hon’Ble & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddy, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri I. Kama Sastry – CAFor Respondent: Shri Deba Kumar Sonawal – CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 253Section 36(1)(va)

253 of the Act was passed by the Assessing Officer on 30/09/2011. Thereafter, on 22/05/2013, the Assessing Officer passed a rectification order under section 154 of the Act to make the following disallowances, which were omitted to be disallowed in the original assessment order. a) Employees contribution to provident fund pertaining to the period April 2004 to August

ACIT, CIRCLE -1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. BHARAT HEAVY PLATE AND VESSELS LTD, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue and both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 439/VIZ/2017[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Mar 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Hon’Ble & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddy, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri I. Kama Sastry – CAFor Respondent: Shri Deba Kumar Sonawal – CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 253Section 36(1)(va)

253 of the Act was passed by the Assessing Officer on 30/09/2011. Thereafter, on 22/05/2013, the Assessing Officer passed a rectification order under section 154 of the Act to make the following disallowances, which were omitted to be disallowed in the original assessment order. a) Employees contribution to provident fund pertaining to the period April 2004 to August

ITO, WARD-3(3),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SIRIPURAPU CHINATALLI,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 375/VIZ/2017[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Feb 2019AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.375/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2008-09) Income Tax Officer Vs. Smt.Siripurapu Chinatalli Ward-3(3) D.No.9-16-37/2 Visakhapatnam Gurajada Enclave Cbm Compound Visakhapatnam [Pan : Agrpc1150E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.457/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2008-09) Income Tax Officer Vs. Shri K.V.V.Prasad Ward-3(3) Plot No.301, Vytla Residency Visakhapatnam Balajinagar Siripuram Visakhapatnam (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2019 : 13.02.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri G.V.N.Hari, AR
Section 271(1)(c)

3. The assessee entered into a land deal for Rs.26.71 crores. The assessee did not possess adequate money to finalize the deal. It is only with the intention of finding an immediate buyer, the assessee entered into the deal. 4. That the amounts paid as advance did not constitute payment of part consideration does not hold water. Part consideration alone

ITO, WARD-3(3),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SHRI K V V PRASAD,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 457/VIZ/2017[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Feb 2019AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.375/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2008-09) Income Tax Officer Vs. Smt.Siripurapu Chinatalli Ward-3(3) D.No.9-16-37/2 Visakhapatnam Gurajada Enclave Cbm Compound Visakhapatnam [Pan : Agrpc1150E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.457/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2008-09) Income Tax Officer Vs. Shri K.V.V.Prasad Ward-3(3) Plot No.301, Vytla Residency Visakhapatnam Balajinagar Siripuram Visakhapatnam (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2019 : 13.02.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri G.V.N.Hari, AR
Section 271(1)(c)

3. The assessee entered into a land deal for Rs.26.71 crores. The assessee did not possess adequate money to finalize the deal. It is only with the intention of finding an immediate buyer, the assessee entered into the deal. 4. That the amounts paid as advance did not constitute payment of part consideration does not hold water. Part consideration alone