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.

4 results for “depreciation”+ Penaltyclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,437Mumbai1,321Bangalore318Chennai285Ahmedabad282Kolkata208Jaipur141Chandigarh95Pune82Hyderabad80Raipur58Indore55Lucknow29SC26Surat23Karnataka22Visakhapatnam21Guwahati17Cochin16Jodhpur15Amritsar15Rajkot15Cuttack14Nagpur12Telangana10Patna9Kerala6Ranchi5Calcutta4Jabalpur3Allahabad3Dehradun3Panaji3Rajasthan1Agra1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 133(6)7Deduction4Depreciation3Section 92B2Section 682Section 14A2Section 115J2Section 322Section 32(1)2Addition to Income

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2, KOLKATA vs. M/S KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and it is held that substantial

ITAT/67/2022HC Calcutta20 Dec 2022

Bench: :

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 260ASection 68Section 80ISection 92B

Depreciation set off (5,28,12,849) Assessed Income - Tax - Determination of Book Profit u/s 115JB Amount(Rs) Amount(Rs) Book Profit u/s 115JB as per modified computation of Income (2,99,80,07,511) Add : Disallowance u/s 14A 1,29,47,275 Revised Book Profit (2,98,50,60,236) Tax @ 18.5% Assessed u/s. 143(3) r.w. 92CA

2

SAUMABHA DASGUPTA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) 6 KOLKATA AND ANR

ITA/30/2022HC Calcutta05 Jul 2023

Bench: The Hon’Ble Justice Harish Tandon The Hon’Ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas Date: 5Th July, 2023 Appearance Mr. Raghunath Das, Advocate Ms. Monalisa Das, Advocate ….For The Appellant Mr. Prithu Dudheria, Advocate …For The Respondents The Court: This Is Virtually A Second Round Of Litigation Before This Court, Assailing An Order Of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Bench “Sms” Kolkata Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Assessee/Petitioner Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2009-10. While Filing The Income Tax Return, The Petitioner Disclosed The Income & Further Deducted The Amount Of Interest Paid On Personal Loan & Other Loans. At The Time Of Scrutiny, It Was Found That Substantial Amount Of Money Was Deposited In Cash With The Savings Bank Account By The Petitioner Who Is Admittedly A Medical Practitioner & Purchased A Ct Scan Machine For His Profession Or Business. The Department Was Of The View That The Personal Loan Cannot Be Equated With The Business Loan Where The Interest Is An Allowable

Section 32Section 32(1)

depreciation to the extent of 15% was allowed instead of 40%. The petitioner challenged the notice of demand as well as the revised assessment order taking a further plea that the assessing officer not only included the interest paid on the personal loan but also included the interest paid on the other loan which was also disallowed in an earlier

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5,KOLKATA vs. ADITYA SARAF HUF

ITAT/30/2022HC Calcutta02 Jan 2023

Bench: The Hon’Ble Justice Harish Tandon The Hon’Ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas Date: 5Th July, 2023 Appearance Mr. Raghunath Das, Advocate Ms. Monalisa Das, Advocate ….For The Appellant Mr. Prithu Dudheria, Advocate …For The Respondents The Court: This Is Virtually A Second Round Of Litigation Before This Court, Assailing An Order Of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Bench “Sms” Kolkata Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Assessee/Petitioner Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2009-10. While Filing The Income Tax Return, The Petitioner Disclosed The Income & Further Deducted The Amount Of Interest Paid On Personal Loan & Other Loans. At The Time Of Scrutiny, It Was Found That Substantial Amount Of Money Was Deposited In Cash With The Savings Bank Account By The Petitioner Who Is Admittedly A Medical Practitioner & Purchased A Ct Scan Machine For His Profession Or Business. The Department Was Of The View That The Personal Loan Cannot Be Equated With The Business Loan Where The Interest Is An Allowable

Section 32Section 32(1)

depreciation to the extent of 15% was allowed instead of 40%. The petitioner challenged the notice of demand as well as the revised assessment order taking a further plea that the assessing officer not only included the interest paid on the personal loan but also included the interest paid on the other loan which was also disallowed in an earlier

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOL-3, KOLKATA vs. SIKARIA INFRAPROJECTS PVT. LTD.

ITA/112/2018HC Calcutta24 Jun 2024

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

Section 1Section 133(6)Section 44A

Penalty amount not disallowed by the assessee while computing its income: Rs.41,047/-. Total Rs.9,29,49,804/-. 7. The CIT(A)-VI, Kolkata in appeal no. 264/CIT(A)-VI/Cir- 6/11-12/Kol disposed of the appeal by a detailed order dated 9.11.2012 while determining the total income at Rs.1,79,98,687/- by appellant and net profit rate