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.

95 results for “depreciation”+ Penaltyclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,354 Mumbai1,227 Bangalore299 Ahmedabad282 Chennai275 Kolkata171 Jaipur141 Chandigarh95 Pune82 Hyderabad80 Raipur58 Indore46 Lucknow28 SC26 Surat23 Visakhapatnam21 Karnataka16 Jodhpur15 Amritsar15 Cochin15 Guwahati15 Rajkot15 Cuttack14 Nagpur12 Telangana10 Patna9 Kerala6 Ranchi5 Calcutta4 Jabalpur3 Allahabad3 Dehradun3 Panaji3 Rajasthan1 Agra1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1 Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 26341 Section 143(3)29 Section 80I26 Addition to Income26 Section 271(1)(c)22 Section 143(2)21 Deduction15 Section 250(6)14 Section 142(1)14

HEALTH BIOTECH LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 987/CHANDI/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: the disposal of the same.

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40

depreciation claimed. The penalty order unequivocally states that the penalty has been levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Thus

ASPEE SONS,SOLAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PARWANOO, PARWANOO

Showing 1–20 of 95 · Page 1 of 5

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1167/CHANDI/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80I

depreciation. Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. While the assessee contested

ACIT, CHANDIGARH vs. THE PUNJABI UNIVERSITY, PATIALA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 359/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 270A

depreciation. Accordingly, addition of Rs.25.43 Cr was made to the total income of the assessee. The ld. AO has initiated the penalty

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MPHALI

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

ITA 262/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Thakral Advocate And Shri Raman Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

depreciation on such assets is linked with the project and hence. 50% of Rs. 66,06,128/- equal to Rs. 31,76,086/-(i.e. 33,03,064/- minus 1,26,978/-) is capitalized and added to the returned loss. The amount of capitalization under CWIP is also increased to the extent. Penalty

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MOHALI

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

ITA 264/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Thakral Advocate And Shri Raman Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

depreciation on such assets is linked with the project and hence. 50% of Rs. 66,06,128/- equal to Rs. 31,76,086/-(i.e. 33,03,064/- minus 1,26,978/-) is capitalized and added to the returned loss. The amount of capitalization under CWIP is also increased to the extent. Penalty

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MPHALI

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

ITA 261/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Thakral Advocate And Shri Raman Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

depreciation on such assets is linked with the project and hence. 50% of Rs. 66,06,128/- equal to Rs. 31,76,086/-(i.e. 33,03,064/- minus 1,26,978/-) is capitalized and added to the returned loss. The amount of capitalization under CWIP is also increased to the extent. Penalty

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MPHALI

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

ITA 260/CHANDI/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Thakral Advocate And Shri Raman Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

depreciation on such assets is linked with the project and hence. 50% of Rs. 66,06,128/- equal to Rs. 31,76,086/-(i.e. 33,03,064/- minus 1,26,978/-) is capitalized and added to the returned loss. The amount of capitalization under CWIP is also increased to the extent. Penalty

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MOHALI

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

ITA 266/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Thakral Advocate And Shri Raman Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

depreciation on such assets is linked with the project and hence. 50% of Rs. 66,06,128/- equal to Rs. 31,76,086/-(i.e. 33,03,064/- minus 1,26,978/-) is capitalized and added to the returned loss. The amount of capitalization under CWIP is also increased to the extent. Penalty

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MPHALI

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

ITA 259/CHANDI/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Thakral Advocate And Shri Raman Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

depreciation on such assets is linked with the project and hence. 50% of Rs. 66,06,128/- equal to Rs. 31,76,086/-(i.e. 33,03,064/- minus 1,26,978/-) is capitalized and added to the returned loss. The amount of capitalization under CWIP is also increased to the extent. Penalty

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MOHALI

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

ITA 265/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Thakral Advocate And Shri Raman Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

depreciation on such assets is linked with the project and hence. 50% of Rs. 66,06,128/- equal to Rs. 31,76,086/-(i.e. 33,03,064/- minus 1,26,978/-) is capitalized and added to the returned loss. The amount of capitalization under CWIP is also increased to the extent. Penalty

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MOHALI

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

ITA 263/CHANDI/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Thakral Advocate And Shri Raman Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

depreciation on such assets is linked with the project and hence. 50% of Rs. 66,06,128/- equal to Rs. 31,76,086/-(i.e. 33,03,064/- minus 1,26,978/-) is capitalized and added to the returned loss. The amount of capitalization under CWIP is also increased to the extent. Penalty

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MOHALI

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

ITA 258/CHANDI/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Thakral Advocate And Shri Raman Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

depreciation on such assets is linked with the project and hence. 50% of Rs. 66,06,128/- equal to Rs. 31,76,086/-(i.e. 33,03,064/- minus 1,26,978/-) is capitalized and added to the returned loss. The amount of capitalization under CWIP is also increased to the extent. Penalty

SHRI BALBIR SINGH VERMA,SHIMLA vs. PR.CIT, SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 314/CHANDI/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR (Virtual)

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3.4 Regarding Motor Car Expenses the Ld. AO observed that the assessee had claimed expenses related to motor vehicles. These included depreciation

M/S PAGRO FROZEN FOODS PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-2(3), CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1076/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Krishan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253

depreciation current year income year 2012-13 25199906 7429889 17770017 2013-14 7027382 0 7027382 Total 32227288 7429889 24797399 Losses to be carried forward Rs. 2,47,97,399/-. Assessed. Issue requisite documents. Charge Interest u/s 234A/B/C, if any. Penalty

SH. AMAN SETH,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-1(1), LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1318/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 129Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253Section 36Section 44A

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) are separately initiated along with this order. 4. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee has claimed telephone expenses of Rs. 85,552/-, car expenses & repair of Rs. 4,60,693/-, depreciation

CT EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,JALANDHAR vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 422/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashray Sarna, CA(Virtual Mode)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 11Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144B

Depreciation disallowed (difference between claimed and restricted amount) of Rs. 36,83,779.02/-. 3.3 The AO's order noted the assessee's non-compliant and casual attitude despite being given ample opportunities. The final Assessed Income was computed at Rs. 11,11,11,830/-. Penalty

AL RASHEED CHARITABLE SOCIETY,HARYANA vs. JCIT, EXEMPTIONS, CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 843/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

For Respondent: \nShri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)

Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

depreciation claimed by the assessee amounting to\nRs.3,34,759/-.\n\nPenalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act also came to be\ninitiated by the AO in respect of additions/disallowances made of\nRs.7,01,67,544/- by the AO by issue of a notice u/s.271(1)(c) read with\nsection 274 of the Act, dated: 20.12.2018. The assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. AARTI INTERNATIONAL LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 464/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 14ASection 69

depreciation claim of Rs. 12,15,02,719/- was disallowed. The AO also found a difference in stock during the survey, where 1373 bales of cotton were not properly recorded in the books of accounts, and since the assessee failed to provide satisfactory proof of their purchase, the same were treated as unaccounted investment and added under section

M/S SINGH CONSTRUCTION CO.,PATIALA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, PATIAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1120/CHANDI/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Mar 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vipen Sethi, Advocate and Shri Shashi Bhushan Galav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 263Section 68

depreciation allowance as part of the book profits of the firm. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in upholding the finding of the Ld. A.O. that a survey was conducted at the premises of the assessee though the fact was denied by the appellant and no adverse material brought on record by the Ld. A.O. to justify

SHIVA SPECIALITY YARNS LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-I, LUDHIANA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 1049/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Navneet Sehgal, CA and Ms. Naina Gaba Sehgal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 80

penalty amounting to A.Y.2018-19 2 Rs.3,36,99,161/- which was imposed by the AO under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that assessee has filed its return of income for assessment year 2018-19 on 02.02.2019 declaring a total loss of Rs.23,85,13,392/- and had claimed a refund