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.

178 results for “depreciation”+ Section 271(1)(c)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi994 Mumbai931 Ahmedabad189 Bangalore178 Chennai127 Jaipur77 Kolkata75 Raipur52 Pune41 Hyderabad37 Indore37 Chandigarh25 Lucknow23 Amritsar16 Visakhapatnam12 Surat12 SC11 Rajkot8 Jodhpur8 Guwahati6 Karnataka6 Patna5 Ranchi5 Allahabad4 Telangana4 Varanasi4 Cuttack3 Nagpur3 Dehradun3 Cochin2 Jabalpur1 Panaji1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1 Calcutta1 S. B. SINHA MARKANDEY KATJU1 D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1 Agra1

Key Topics

Addition to Income68 Section 143(3)67 Disallowance44 Transfer Pricing42 Deduction33 Section 92C32 Section 14832 Section 15432 Depreciation28 Comparables/TP

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. SANTOSH SHIVAJI LAD, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1522/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan M, CIT (DR)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 57

depreciation as well as deduction under section 24 and made addition to its income. The AO also imposed penalty under section 271(1)(c

Showing 1–20 of 178 · Page 1 of 9

...

26

Section 271(1)(c)24

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI C GANGADHARA MURTHY , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2400/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuthe Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Shri C. Gangadhara Murthy Income-Tax, No. 322, 3Rd A Corss, 2Nd Block Circle - 6(2)(1) 3Rd Stage, Basaveshwaranagar Bangalore . Bangalore 560079. Pan – Agipg 2668 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2

271 ITR (AT) 56 (Hyd.) that "processing of return under section 143(1)(a) cannot be equated to an assessment. Notice under section 143(2) was also not issued. The Assessing Officer has power under section 147 to initiate the assessment proceedings". In the case of Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. v. CBDT [2000] 246 ITR 173 Delhi

KOTARKI CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD ,BIDAR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GULBARGA RANGE , GULBARGA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3395/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Elamurugu G., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

271(1)(c) of the Act has not been complied with under the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the AO has not recorded satisfaction in the order of assessment, either for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and consequently the order passed is bad in law, on the facts

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 , BAGALKOT vs. M/S RYTARA SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMITHA , BAGALKOT

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed, while the CO is allowed

ITA 1277/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Smt. Vani H., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act). In the Cross objection the Assessee has submitted that the penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act has to be quashed on the ground that the show cause notice issued u/s.274 of the Act, before imposing penalty does not specify the exact charge against the Assessee and therefore even

M/S VOLVO INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1537/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153(1)Section 18

C) 2317.89 63. It was the plea of the Assessee that the excess of purchase consideration over the value assigned to tangible assets, was allocated to intangible assets to the extent of Rs.88.08 crores and goodwill to the extent of Rs.43.40 crores. Such portion of the purchase consideration (which is in excess of the value allocated to tangible assets acquired

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1) , BANGALORE vs. MITSUBISHI HEAVY INDUSTRIES-VST DIESEL ENGINES PRIVATE LIMITED, MYSURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 505/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ankith, CA

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

depreciation, the Assessing officer initiated the penalty proceedings U/s 271(1)(c) of the I. Tax Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of Income on or before the completion of the Assessment Proceedings. 16. Further, The Learned JCIT, Circle 4(1)(2), Bangalore based on the fact that the Assessee had not made suo-moto submission regarding non-eligibility

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. RASHTROTTHANA PARISHAT, BENGALURU

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

ITA 1666/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017=18

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra CIT-D.RFor Respondent: Sri Prakash Shridhar Hegde, CA

Section 11Section 11(6)Section 250Section 270ASection 274

c) of the Income-tax Act entirely indicates the element of strict liability on the assessee for concealment or for giving inaccurate particulars while filing return. The judgment in Dilip N. Shroff’s case (supra) has not considered the effect and relevance of section 276C of the Income-tax Act. Object behind enactment of section 271(1)(e) read with

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. MANIPAL HOSPITALS (BANGALORE) PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result appeal of the Ld

ITA 959/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Hon’Ble & Shri Soundararajan K, Hon’Bledcit – Central Circle – 1(2) Vs. M/S. Manipal Hospitals Room No. 307, 3Rdfloor. (Bangalore) Private Limited C.R. Building, Queens Road 98/2, The Annex Bengaluru – 560001 Ruso Bagh Karnataka Off. Hal Airport Road Bengaluru – 560017 Karnataka Pan: Aaccv9562D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By: Sri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Department Represented By: Smt Prajakta Thakur, Jcit Date Of Hearing:09.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.07.2025 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi: 1. Captioned Appeal Is Filed By Dcit – Central Circle – 1(2), Bengaluru Against The Appellate Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Bengaluru (“The Ld.Cit(A)”) Dated 28.02.2025 Wherein The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Penalty Order Dated 25.03.2022 Passed By Dcit – Central

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

section 271(1)(c) of the Act for which the penalty proceedings are initiated, in this regard Ld.CIT(A) has followed the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [35 taxmann.com 250 (kar)] as well as CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows [73 taxmann.com 241 (Karnataka)]. Therefore, the penalty

M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 228/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan S. & Smt. Lalitha R., AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(vii)

depreciation was reduced to the extent of Rs.50,25,197. Assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 31.12.2018 determining total income at Rs.1502,69,05,350 under regular provisions and at Rs.1848,74,25,220 under MAT provisions after making certain disallowances. 6. The first common issue that arises for consideration

M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 227/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan S. & Smt. Lalitha R., AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(vii)

depreciation was reduced to the extent of Rs.50,25,197. Assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 31.12.2018 determining total income at Rs.1502,69,05,350 under regular provisions and at Rs.1848,74,25,220 under MAT provisions after making certain disallowances. 6. The first common issue that arises for consideration

M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, LTU, CIRCLE-2, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 229/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan S. & Smt. Lalitha R., AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(vii)

depreciation was reduced to the extent of Rs.50,25,197. Assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 31.12.2018 determining total income at Rs.1502,69,05,350 under regular provisions and at Rs.1848,74,25,220 under MAT provisions after making certain disallowances. 6. The first common issue that arises for consideration

TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 694/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs

271(1)(c) of the Act without having regard to the fact that the appellant has fully disclosed all the facts in the return of income and that the appellant has not concealed income. 7. Interest under section 234B of the Act. The learned AO erred in levying interest under section 234B of the Act. The same is consequential

M/S. TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 582/BANG/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs

271(1)(c) of the Act without having regard to the fact that the appellant has fully disclosed all the facts in the return of income and that the appellant has not concealed income. 7. Interest under section 234B of the Act. The learned AO erred in levying interest under section 234B of the Act. The same is consequential

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 1119/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs

271(1)(c) of the Act without having regard to the fact that the appellant has fully disclosed all the facts in the return of income and that the appellant has not concealed income. 7. Interest under section 234B of the Act. The learned AO erred in levying interest under section 234B of the Act. The same is consequential

M/S TEJATS NETWORKS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 1674/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs

271(1)(c) of the Act without having regard to the fact that the appellant has fully disclosed all the facts in the return of income and that the appellant has not concealed income. 7. Interest under section 234B of the Act. The learned AO erred in levying interest under section 234B of the Act. The same is consequential

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 296/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs

271(1)(c) of the Act without having regard to the fact that the appellant has fully disclosed all the facts in the return of income and that the appellant has not concealed income. 7. Interest under section 234B of the Act. The learned AO erred in levying interest under section 234B of the Act. The same is consequential

TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 468/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs

271(1)(c) of the Act without having regard to the fact that the appellant has fully disclosed all the facts in the return of income and that the appellant has not concealed income. 7. Interest under section 234B of the Act. The learned AO erred in levying interest under section 234B of the Act. The same is consequential

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 621/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs

271(1)(c) of the Act without having regard to the fact that the appellant has fully disclosed all the facts in the return of income and that the appellant has not concealed income. 7. Interest under section 234B of the Act. The learned AO erred in levying interest under section 234B of the Act. The same is consequential

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

ITA 939/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: \nShri M.V Prasad, CA & Shri KS Rajendra KumarFor Respondent: \nShri Muthu Shankar, CIT &

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 25Section 250Section 8

section 132A. 50.3 Applicability-These\namendments will take effect from the 1st day of June, 2007.\"\n\n6.2 From the perusal of the section 153D of the Act read with the CBDT\nCircular No. 3 of 2008, dated 12-3-2008, the legislative intent can be gathered\nso far as that the legislature in its highest wisdom made it compulsory

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU

ITA 940/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri M.V Prasad, CA & Shri KS Rajendra KumarFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT &

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 25Section 250Section 8

Section\n153D. It is not an exercise dealing with a immaterial matter which\ncould be corrected by taking recourse to Section 292B of the Act.\n16. We are not inclined to interdict the order of the Tribunal.\n17. Accordingly, the appeal is closed.\n6.5 The above view taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT