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.

20 results for “depreciation”+ Section 274clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai486Delhi409Bangalore192Raipur92Ahmedabad81Chennai72Jaipur70Kolkata47Pune39Hyderabad26Surat23Chandigarh20Amritsar16Indore14Visakhapatnam11Guwahati11Karnataka11Lucknow10Cochin10Agra7Ranchi5Panaji3Telangana3Jabalpur2Rajkot2SC2Allahabad2Dehradun2Nagpur2Cuttack2Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 80H48Section 271(1)(c)23Section 10B16Deduction11Section 14810Section 27110Exemption9Section 14A8Addition to Income7Section 147

SH RAMESH KUMAR DUDANI,MOHALI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE -6(1), MOHALI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1146/CHANDI/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Oct 2020AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Nalin K. Nohria, C.A Shri B.K. Nohria, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rishi Kumar, ACIT
Section 154Section 246ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

274 of the Act. 2. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-2 Chandigarh has erred in upholding the order of the learned A 0 has in the notice under Section 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has stated that the assessee has concealed the particulars of income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income as well

6
Section 143(3)6
Depreciation5

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

274 read with section 271(1)(c). On careful examination of the assessment order and the penalty order, we find that the Assessing Officer has recorded a clear and categorical satisfaction that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income in respect of the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) as well as excess depreciation

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

Section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961." In the present case also the assessee has agreed during assessment proceedings that it was eligible for amortization over the concession period of 16 years which resulted in decrease in allowable depreciation

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)

274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) as it did not specify on which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e., whether the concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 3. The Ld. CIT(A), is not justified in upholding the penalty of Rs. 1,80,600/- which

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

SMT. ASHA GANDHI,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-II(1), LUDHIANA

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

ITA 1224/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Aug 2019AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Gaurav SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Shiv Swaroop Sharma
Section 115BSection 68

Section 274 of the I.T.Act, 1961 are initiated separately.” 3. The assessee carried the issue in appeal before the CIT(A) and relied upon further supporting evidences to justify the claims made on the basis of the audited books of account. Though the CIT(A) remanded the evidences to the AO, however, ultimately the additions made by the AO were

DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER PVT. LTD., NABHA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 121/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 121/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Dcit, M/S Glaxosmithkline Circle 1(1), बनाम Consumer Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh Patiala Road, Vs. Nabha. Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aafcg8415R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate With Sh. Neeraj Jain, Advocate & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca (Virtual) राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate with Sh. Neeraj Jain, Advocate and Ms. Somya Jain, For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 32(1)

274 (Bang Trib.) 18. In view of the aforesaid, since the predecessor, viz. Novartis in the present case, has not claimed depreciation on both tangible and intangible assets forming part of the OTC business transferred to the assessee by way of slump sale, the provisions of sixth proviso to section

S.P. SINGLA CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 514/CHANDI/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Jan 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 153Section 153A

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this Section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under Sub-section (3) of Section 143 or this Section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD.,,LUDHIANA vs. JCIT,, LUDHIANA

In the result appeals of the Assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 938/CHANDI/2008[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 May 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2002-03

For Appellant: Shri. Subhash AggarwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Abrol
Section 10BSection 14ASection 80H

Depreciation to the indirect cost of Trading Goods while calculating deduction u/s 80HHC of Income Tax Act, ignoring the fact that full amount of these expenses were not related to the trading activities. 7. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts while confirming the action of the assessing officer for disallowing

M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

In the result appeals of the Assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 681/CHANDI/2007[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 May 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2002-03

For Appellant: Shri. Subhash AggarwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Abrol
Section 10BSection 14ASection 80H

Depreciation to the indirect cost of Trading Goods while calculating deduction u/s 80HHC of Income Tax Act, ignoring the fact that full amount of these expenses were not related to the trading activities. 7. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts while confirming the action of the assessing officer for disallowing

ACIT,, LUDHIANA vs. M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD.,, LUDHIANA

In the result appeals of the Assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 981/CHANDI/2008[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 May 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2002-03

For Appellant: Shri. Subhash AggarwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Abrol
Section 10BSection 14ASection 80H

Depreciation to the indirect cost of Trading Goods while calculating deduction u/s 80HHC of Income Tax Act, ignoring the fact that full amount of these expenses were not related to the trading activities. 7. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts while confirming the action of the assessing officer for disallowing

M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD.,,LUDHIANA vs. ADDL. CIT,, LUDHIANA

In the result appeals of the Assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 528/CHANDI/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 May 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2002-03

For Appellant: Shri. Subhash AggarwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Abrol
Section 10BSection 14ASection 80H

Depreciation to the indirect cost of Trading Goods while calculating deduction u/s 80HHC of Income Tax Act, ignoring the fact that full amount of these expenses were not related to the trading activities. 7. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts while confirming the action of the assessing officer for disallowing

VARDHMAN TEXTILE LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

In the result appeals of the Assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 475/CHANDI/2008[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 May 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2002-03

For Appellant: Shri. Subhash AggarwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Abrol
Section 10BSection 14ASection 80H

Depreciation to the indirect cost of Trading Goods while calculating deduction u/s 80HHC of Income Tax Act, ignoring the fact that full amount of these expenses were not related to the trading activities. 7. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts while confirming the action of the assessing officer for disallowing

ACIT, LUDHIANA vs. VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result appeals of the Assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 691/CHANDI/2007[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 May 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2002-03

For Appellant: Shri. Subhash AggarwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Abrol
Section 10BSection 14ASection 80H

Depreciation to the indirect cost of Trading Goods while calculating deduction u/s 80HHC of Income Tax Act, ignoring the fact that full amount of these expenses were not related to the trading activities. 7. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts while confirming the action of the assessing officer for disallowing

ACIT,, LUDHIANA vs. M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD.,, LUDHIANA

In the result appeals of the Assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 575/CHANDI/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 May 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2002-03

For Appellant: Shri. Subhash AggarwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Abrol
Section 10BSection 14ASection 80H

Depreciation to the indirect cost of Trading Goods while calculating deduction u/s 80HHC of Income Tax Act, ignoring the fact that full amount of these expenses were not related to the trading activities. 7. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts while confirming the action of the assessing officer for disallowing

ACIT, LUDHIANA vs. M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result appeals of the Assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 530/CHANDI/2008[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 May 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2002-03

For Appellant: Shri. Subhash AggarwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Abrol
Section 10BSection 14ASection 80H

Depreciation to the indirect cost of Trading Goods while calculating deduction u/s 80HHC of Income Tax Act, ignoring the fact that full amount of these expenses were not related to the trading activities. 7. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts while confirming the action of the assessing officer for disallowing

M/S SEL MANUFACTURING CO. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-3, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 362/CHANDI/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 148Section 250(6)Section 5(20)Section 5(21)Section 69CSection 7

274, G.T. Road, Dhandari Khurd, Central Circle-3, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN /TAN No: AAHCS9189E अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 16.04.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 27.05.2024 HYBRID HEARAING

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

section 40A(3) of Income Tax Act 1961 .Therefore, this amount of Rs 1,23,299/- is added back to the income of the assessee being unexplained cash credit since the same are not reflected in assessee's regular books of accounts on those relevant dates.. Since the above transaction also violated the provisions of section

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

section 40A(3) of Income Tax Act 1961 .Therefore, this amount of Rs 1,23,299/- is added back to the income of the assessee being unexplained cash credit since the same are not reflected in assessee's regular books of accounts on those relevant dates.. Since the above transaction also violated the provisions of section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MOHALI PUNJAB vs. TAJ LAND DEVELOPEFRS AND PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED , SECTOR MOHALI PUNJAB

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 606/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Sept 2025AY 2011-12
For Appellant: \nShri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: \nSmt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 151

section 147/148 is arbitrary and bad in law and therefore assessment\nframed consequent thereto is obviously illegal and void ab initio and liable to\nbe quashed. We accordingly set aside the order of the Id. CIT(A) and hold re-\nassessment proceedings bad in law and also directing quashing of the re-\nassessment order.\n\nFortune Metaliks Limited vs DCIT