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.

43 results for “depreciation”+ Section 271(1)(C)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,091 Mumbai1,085 Ahmedabad199 Bangalore186 Chennai144 Kolkata96 Jaipur82 Raipur53 Pune49 Hyderabad46 Indore44 Surat44 Chandigarh43 Lucknow25 Amritsar16 Visakhapatnam12 SC11 Rajkot10 Dehradun10 Nagpur10 Jodhpur8 Guwahati8 Karnataka6 Patna5 Cuttack5 Ranchi5 Telangana5 Varanasi4 Allahabad4 Panaji4 Agra3 Cochin3 Jabalpur1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1 D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1 S. B. SINHA MARKANDEY KATJU1 Calcutta1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)30 Section 80I19 Addition to Income15 Section 143(3)13 Disallowance12 Deduction11 Depreciation10 Section 143(2)9 Penalty9 Section 148

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)

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

DCIT, C-1 (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH vs. THE INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ENGINEERS SOCIETY, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Showing 1–20 of 43 · Page 1 of 3

8

Survey u/s 133A7

ITA 52/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed

ITAT Chandigarh

14 May 2025

AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 143(3)

1)(c)(i) & (ii) read with section 13(2)(c) &\n13(3)(c) of the Act. \"\nHon'ble Mumbai Bench in the case of The Cancer Aid Research Foundation\nByculla Municipal School Building vs Director of Income Tax (Exemp) in ITA No.\n1782/Mum/2014 vide order dated 16.07.2014 wherein it has been held as under:\n\"There

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

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 on assets funded by capital subsidy. Consequent to these additions, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c

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

ACIT,CIRCLE PANCHKULA, PANCHKULA vs. M/S V.K.SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTOR, PANCHKULA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 79/CHANDI/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri R.L Negiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 79/Chd/2020 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 बनाम The Acit, M/S V.K. Sood Engineers & Circle, Panchkula Contractor Ddsjv, Unit-Iii, H.No. 20, Sector-6 Panchkula-134109, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aagfv0584J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Krishan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT

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

depreciation claimed, however, restricted the addition of 20% made on account of expenses of personal nature to 10%. In the meantime the A.O. initiated the proceedings under section 271(1)(c

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

271(1)(c) states that where in respect of any facts material to the computation of income the assessee does not offer an explanation or offers a false explanation or offers an explanation which is unable to substantiate and prove that it is bonafide, then the amount added or disallowed in computing the total income as a result thereof shall

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 proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act is being initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income

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)

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 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)

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act which was worked out @13% on Rs. 2,06,24,284/- 5. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted as under: GROUND No. 1 Disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) Regarding the disallowance of interest u/s 36(l)iii), it is submitted that the debit

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

271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. Being aggrieved by the AO order dt. 10/02/2015 (supra) the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who by an order dt. 05/06/2017 has sustained the additions. 7. The assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of Ld. CIT(A) dt. 05/06/2017 has preferred an appeal before

M/S APEX BUILDERS, LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-2(1), LUDHIANA

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1284/CHANDI/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vinamar Gupta, CA (Virtual Mode)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 194ASection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 40A(3)

depreciation amounting to Rs.2,56,919 were debited to the profit and loss account. As no log books or call registers were maintained, and considering 3 the likelihood of personal use, 1/5th of these expenses (Rs.51,384) was disallowed. 4.5 Finally, the AO noticed that an advance of Rs.1,00,000 was made to Mr. Pankaj Garg, C.A., which

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,KALA AMB vs. ITO, SIRMOUR

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

ITA 61/CHANDI/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Aditya Sood, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253Section 80I

1. during survey u./s 133A on 7th & 8th of December, 2009, which was annexurised as A-5. This day book for A.Y. 2007-08 was computerized and ledger and cash books were prepared, copy of which was handed to the assessee for its comments. But it failed to substantiate the same. Explanation furnished by the assessee is not accepted

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,SIRMOUR vs. ADDL. CIT, SOLAN

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

ITA 388/CHANDI/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jul 2024AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Aditya Sood, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253Section 80I

1. during survey u./s 133A on 7th & 8th of December, 2009, which was annexurised as A-5. This day book for A.Y. 2007-08 was computerized and ledger and cash books were prepared, copy of which was handed to the assessee for its comments. But it failed to substantiate the same. Explanation furnished by the assessee is not accepted

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

271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particular leading to concealment of the income. The appellant has submitted that, "In this regard it is respectfully submitted that the depreciation of Rs. 63,92,824/- (Rs. 66,06,128 - Rs. 2,13,304) as claimed by the Assessee Company were relating to depreciation of rented building, furniture

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

271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particular leading to concealment of the income. The appellant has submitted that, "In this regard it is respectfully submitted that the depreciation of Rs. 63,92,824/- (Rs. 66,06,128 - Rs. 2,13,304) as claimed by the Assessee Company were relating to depreciation of rented building, furniture

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

271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particular leading to concealment of the income. The appellant has submitted that, "In this regard it is respectfully submitted that the depreciation of Rs. 63,92,824/- (Rs. 66,06,128 - Rs. 2,13,304) as claimed by the Assessee Company were relating to depreciation of rented building, furniture

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

271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particular leading to concealment of the income. The appellant has submitted that, "In this regard it is respectfully submitted that the depreciation of Rs. 63,92,824/- (Rs. 66,06,128 - Rs. 2,13,304) as claimed by the Assessee Company were relating to depreciation of rented building, furniture

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

271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particular leading to concealment of the income. The appellant has submitted that, "In this regard it is respectfully submitted that the depreciation of Rs. 63,92,824/- (Rs. 66,06,128 - Rs. 2,13,304) as claimed by the Assessee Company were relating to depreciation of rented building, furniture

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

271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particular leading to concealment of the income. The appellant has submitted that, "In this regard it is respectfully submitted that the depreciation of Rs. 63,92,824/- (Rs. 66,06,128 - Rs. 2,13,304) as claimed by the Assessee Company were relating to depreciation of rented building, furniture