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.

141 results for “depreciation”+ Penaltyclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,428 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 271(1)(c)40 Addition to Income40 Section 80I38 Section 27127 Depreciation26 Section 143(3)25 Deduction25 Penalty24 Section 26323 Disallowance

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

S.D.S. ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

Showing 1–20 of 141 · Page 1 of 8

...

22

Section 143(2)15

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is, therefore, allowed

ITA 243/CHANDI/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Oct 2018AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri J.S. Kahlon, Sr. DR

Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

penalty was levied related to the disallowance of depreciation on account of reallocation of depreciation between the eligible and non eligible

ACIT, CIRCLE, PANCHKULA vs. M/S HIMALAYAN EXPRESSWAY LTD., PINJORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1614/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri. Ashwani Kumar GargFor Respondent: Dr. Gulshan Raj

Section 271(1)(c)Section 276C

penalty on this disallowance of depreciation claimed by the assessee by invoking the judgments of various Courts namely MAK Data

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

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

AABHAS SPINNERS PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, C-1, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1230/CHANDI/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: None on 06.04.2018For Respondent: Smt. Chanderkanta Sr.DR

Section 271(1)(c)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The brief facts relating to the issue are that the assessee claimed additional depreciation

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 102/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Jindal, CA &For Respondent: Smt.C. Chandrakanta, CIT DR

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

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) for wrong adjustment of Unabsorbed Depreciation. A.Y. 2012-13 Page 8 of 18 5. CIT Vs Gold

M/S MRS. BECTOR FOOD SPECIALITIES LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 488/CHANDI/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri. Subhash AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri. Yoginder Mittal

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the followings disallowances:- i) Disallowance of depreciation on capital receipt Rs. 2,46,000/- of subsidy

M/S IOL CHEMICALS AND PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ADDL. CIT, R-I, LUDHIANA

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

ITA 1419/CHANDI/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. C. Chandrakanta, CIT

Section 115JSection 250(6)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 41(1)

depreciation would be allowed accordingly when the asset is put to use. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the I.T. Act are initiated

M/S COLOUR COTTEX PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-5(2), LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1715/CHANDI/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri. B.M. Monga, Shri. Rohit KauraFor Respondent: Shri. Manjit Singh

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 37(1)

penalty was deleted on the grounds that it was a bonafide mistake of claiming wrong depreciation and ROC fee. And also

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

M/S CORE METAL KRAFTS LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, C-5(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 347/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Us.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Smt.Meenakshi Vohra, Addl. CIT

Section 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 43B

penalty of Rs.7477/- were contested as being compensatory and hence allowable but were subsequently offered for taxation. We have noted that the current losses returned by the assessee ,as per copy of ITR alongwith computation of income for the year filed before us, was Rs.78,98,857/- and the brought forward business were Rs.30,86,198/- and brought forward depreciation

RMC SERVICES,MANIMAJRA vs. ITO, W-3(4), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 835/CHANDI/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 835/Chd/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Rmc Services, The Ito, Ward 3(4), बनाम Sco 855, 1St Floor, Nac, Chandigarh Manimajra, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aajfr6827P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Sharma, Addl CIT

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 32

depreciation on after the original assessment has been framed under section 143(3) also not warranted thus the assessment order passed stand void ab initio. 4. Initiation of penalty

JCIT(OSD), C-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S KUANTUM PAPERS LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 55/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 May 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptathe D.C.I.T., Vs. M/S Kuantum Papers Ltd., Circle-1(1), Sco 18-19, 1St Floor, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. Pan: Aadca2231K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Smt. Chanderkanta, Add.CITFor Respondent: Shri Vineet Krishan, Adv

depreciation of Rs.17,06,982/- is disallowed and added to the income of the assessee. The assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income and therefore, provisions of section 271(l)(c) are attracted and therefore, 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., 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 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 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 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., 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