Search: depreciation | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

24 results for “depreciation”+ Penaltyclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,427 Mumbai1,345 Ahmedabad461 Bangalore308 Chennai267 Kolkata212 Jaipur173 Pune168 Chandigarh141 Hyderabad113 Raipur65 Surat61 Indore59 Cochin35 Visakhapatnam34 Lucknow31 Guwahati28 SC26 Cuttack26 Amritsar24 Rajkot23 Karnataka22 Nagpur21 Jodhpur16 Dehradun13 Telangana10 Agra9 Patna9 Panaji6 Kerala6 Ranchi5 Calcutta4 Jabalpur4 Allahabad3 Varanasi1 Rajasthan1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)21 Section 271(1)(c)20 Section 80I20 Addition to Income20 Depreciation19 Disallowance18 Section 25013 Deduction13 Section 3211 Section 43(1)

SHRI YASH PAUL MALHOTRA,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 379/ASR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

depreciation. However, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) initiated in the assessment order itself for concealment of income. 3.3 Subsequently, penalty

Showing 1–20 of 24 · Page 1 of 2

10

M/S KASHMIR STEEL ROLLING MILLS,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 548/ASR/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 548/(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Bansal (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

penalty regarding addition of Rs.5, 519/- on account of disallowance of depreciation on scooter. 5. Any other ground which may be urged

M/S. K.C.LAND & FINANCE (REGD.),NAWANSHAHR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, , JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 525/ASR/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Aug 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.525(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year:2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. M.R. Bhagat & Rajinder Kr. ChopraFor Respondent: Smt. Parwinder Kaur (Ld. DR)

depreciation etc. It was further affirmed by the ld. CIT(A) and penalty of Rs.17,000/- was made on the addition

SH. JASBIR SINGH S/O TEK CHAND,,HOSHIARPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed on the aforesaid terms

ITA 600/ASR/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar01 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 600/(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. J. K. Passi (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 147

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c), raise frivolous claims in the assessment proceedings. The Revenue authorities are, thus, in our view, not correct in stating of this as one of the grounds on which the assessee’s claim for (additional) depreciation

TILLA BABA FARID RELIGIOUS & CHARITABLE SOCIETY,FARIDKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTIONS), AMRITSAR.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 621/ASR/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 621/(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Kataria (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Rajeev Gubgotra (D.R.)

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 32Section 32(1)

depreciation is to be consistently provided in accounts based on objective data. Needless to add, the AO Tilla Baba Farid Religious & Charitable Society(AY 2012-13) shall cause the computation of the application of income - for the relevant objects; the assessee pursuing both religious and charitable objects, per the requisite forms. We decide accordingly. Penalty

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FIL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

ITA 292/ASR/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)Section 80I

depreciation claimed as above is disallowed on account of C.A. Stores, Srinagar and Kohinoor International Agro Products Tetra Division, Srinagar works out to (Rs. . 5,29,265 /- + Rs. 13,62,898/- i.e. Rs. 18,92,163/-. I am satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income on this account. Penalty

M/S FIL INDUSTRIES LTD,SRINAGAR vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

ITA 417/ASR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)Section 80I

depreciation claimed as above is disallowed on account of C.A. Stores, Srinagar and Kohinoor International Agro Products Tetra Division, Srinagar works out to (Rs. . 5,29,265 /- + Rs. 13,62,898/- i.e. Rs. 18,92,163/-. I am satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income on this account. Penalty

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FILL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

ITA 291/ASR/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)Section 80I

depreciation claimed as above is disallowed on account of C.A. Stores, Srinagar and Kohinoor International Agro Products Tetra Division, Srinagar works out to (Rs. . 5,29,265 /- + Rs. 13,62,898/- i.e. Rs. 18,92,163/-. I am satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income on this account. Penalty

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FILL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

ITA 289/ASR/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2002-03

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)Section 80I

depreciation claimed as above is disallowed on account of C.A. Stores, Srinagar and Kohinoor International Agro Products Tetra Division, Srinagar works out to (Rs. . 5,29,265 /- + Rs. 13,62,898/- i.e. Rs. 18,92,163/-. I am satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income on this account. Penalty

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FIL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

ITA 294/ASR/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)Section 80I

depreciation claimed as above is disallowed on account of C.A. Stores, Srinagar and Kohinoor International Agro Products Tetra Division, Srinagar works out to (Rs. . 5,29,265 /- + Rs. 13,62,898/- i.e. Rs. 18,92,163/-. I am satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income on this account. Penalty

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FIL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

ITA 293/ASR/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)Section 80I

depreciation claimed as above is disallowed on account of C.A. Stores, Srinagar and Kohinoor International Agro Products Tetra Division, Srinagar works out to (Rs. . 5,29,265 /- + Rs. 13,62,898/- i.e. Rs. 18,92,163/-. I am satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income on this account. Penalty

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. FIL INDUSTRIES LTD, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

ITA 470/ASR/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)Section 80I

depreciation claimed as above is disallowed on account of C.A. Stores, Srinagar and Kohinoor International Agro Products Tetra Division, Srinagar works out to (Rs. . 5,29,265 /- + Rs. 13,62,898/- i.e. Rs. 18,92,163/-. I am satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income on this account. Penalty

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. FIL INDUSTRIES LTD, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

ITA 471/ASR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)Section 80I

depreciation claimed as above is disallowed on account of C.A. Stores, Srinagar and Kohinoor International Agro Products Tetra Division, Srinagar works out to (Rs. . 5,29,265 /- + Rs. 13,62,898/- i.e. Rs. 18,92,163/-. I am satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income on this account. Penalty

M/S FIL INDUSTRIES LTD,SRINAGAR vs. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

ITA 255/ASR/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)Section 80I

depreciation claimed as above is disallowed on account of C.A. Stores, Srinagar and Kohinoor International Agro Products Tetra Division, Srinagar works out to (Rs. . 5,29,265 /- + Rs. 13,62,898/- i.e. Rs. 18,92,163/-. I am satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income on this account. Penalty

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FILL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

ITA 290/ASR/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)Section 80I

depreciation claimed as above is disallowed on account of C.A. Stores, Srinagar and Kohinoor International Agro Products Tetra Division, Srinagar works out to (Rs. . 5,29,265 /- + Rs. 13,62,898/- i.e. Rs. 18,92,163/-. I am satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income on this account. Penalty

M/S ALFA MECHANICAL & ELECTRICALS ENGINEERING WORKS,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), SRINAGAR

In the result ITA No. 137/ASR/2018 and ITA No

ITA 137/ASR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Umar Rashid Wani, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Kanchan Garg, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

penalty. The assessee was waiting for quantum appeal as per advice of consultant. The wrong advice of the consultant may cause the delay for filing the appeal. The Revenue has not made any objection related to condonation of delay for 149 days. Accordingly, the delay is condoned. We take the appeal for hearing. 3. The assessee has taken the following

MESERS ALFA MECHANICAL & ELECTRICALS ENGINEERING WORKS,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFICER WARD 3 (1), SRINAGAR

In the result ITA No. 137/ASR/2018 and ITA No

ITA 99/ASR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Umar Rashid Wani, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Kanchan Garg, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

penalty. The assessee was waiting for quantum appeal as per advice of consultant. The wrong advice of the consultant may cause the delay for filing the appeal. The Revenue has not made any objection related to condonation of delay for 149 days. Accordingly, the delay is condoned. We take the appeal for hearing. 3. The assessee has taken the following

MESERS EMBROCIA FARMS PVT LTD,PATHANKOT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, PATHANKOT

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is (in ITA No

ITA 561/ASR/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 May 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. Nos. 561/Asr/2018 & 284/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. Tarsem Lal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 2.2 In appeal, the assessee disputed the computation of STCG as well as that of LTCG. The first appellate authority decided thus (vide order dated 15.01.2014): ‘6. Under the given facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that whereas a composite sale deed has been executed without

M/S EMBROCIA FARMS PVT LTD. ,PATHANKOT vs. D.C.I.T, CIRCLE-6,, PATHANKOT

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is (in ITA No

ITA 284/ASR/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 May 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. Nos. 561/Asr/2018 & 284/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. Tarsem Lal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 2.2 In appeal, the assessee disputed the computation of STCG as well as that of LTCG. The first appellate authority decided thus (vide order dated 15.01.2014): ‘6. Under the given facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that whereas a composite sale deed has been executed without

MESERS MALWA MOTORS,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), BATHINDA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 131/ASR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 131/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter) for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13 vide order dated 17.7.2015. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee, a firm in the business of sale and service of vehicles, returned its’ income for the year on 30/9/2012 at Rs.2625, setting