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.

7 results for “depreciation”+ Section 271(1)(c)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,083Mumbai1,081Ahmedabad326Bangalore183Chennai131Kolkata97Pune96Jaipur88Chandigarh67Hyderabad54Raipur54Surat51Indore50Visakhapatnam27Lucknow26Amritsar24Rajkot12SC11Dehradun10Jodhpur10Nagpur10Guwahati8Agra8Cuttack7Cochin7Karnataka6Ranchi5Patna5Telangana5Panaji4Varanasi4Allahabad4D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1Jabalpur1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Calcutta1S. B. SINHA MARKANDEY KATJU1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)13Addition to Income7Section 80H5Section 32(1)(iia)5Penalty5Depreciation5Section 2634Section 1484Section 143(1)3Section 274

SHRI.PRAKASH R. NAIR,KOLLAM vs. DCIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 141/COCH/2021[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2024AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasprakash R. Nair Dy.Cit, Central Circle Prop. Dhanya Foods Kollam Kochuppilammoodu Vs. Kollam 691001 [Pan:Abfpn4424P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 148(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80Section 801A(9)Section 80HSection 80I

section 271(1)(c), i.e., 8 Prakash R. Nair v. Dy.CIT, Central Circle concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, under which the impugned penalty stands levied u/s. 271(1)(c) r/w Explanation 1 thereto, adverting to the copy of the said notice (PB pg. 3). Reliance for the purpose was placed by him principally

3
Section 143(3)3
Deduction3

DR. K.E. MOORTHY,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 637/COCH/2008[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin18 Jul 2019AY 2000-01

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

section 271 (1) (c). 11.5 It was submitted that the assessee had in addition to the claim for standard deduction also made claim for normal expenses on a very conservative basis for an amount of Rs. 60000 in each assessment years and an amount of Rs. 164250 and 93400 as depreciation

M/S. JOSEPH GEORGE & CO.,,PATHANAPURAM vs. THE ITO, KOLLAM

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

ITA 323/COCH/2016[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2017AY 1996-97

Bench: S/Shri Abraham P. George, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

section 147 of the Act was completed by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 11/01/2001 wherein the Assessing Officer had calculated short term capital gains of Rs.6,43,779/- on sale of shops. The calculation of short term capital gains is as follows: The sold shop building Rs.10,10,000/- (sale consideration

M/S.SOORYA DRUG HOUSE,THODUPUZHA vs. THE ITO,WD-2, THODUPUZHA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 237/COCH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Mathew JosephFor Respondent: Sri.Shantom Bose
Section 133ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 148Section 153Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

depreciation on car -- 32,253 Total 24,15,165 22,22,127 Less : Additional income offered in the 19,00,000 20,00,000 returns to cover up the above mistakes. Additions in the assessment 5,15,165 2,22,127 3. The penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act were initiated by issuance of notice

M/S.SOORYA DRUG HOUSE,THODUPUZHA vs. THE ITO,WD-2, THODUPUZHA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 236/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Mathew JosephFor Respondent: Sri.Shantom Bose
Section 133ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 148Section 153Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

depreciation on car -- 32,253 Total 24,15,165 22,22,127 Less : Additional income offered in the 19,00,000 20,00,000 returns to cover up the above mistakes. Additions in the assessment 5,15,165 2,22,127 3. The penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act were initiated by issuance of notice

M/S.APOLLO TYRES LTD,COCHIN vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, COCHIN

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

ITA 609/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Apollo Tyres Ltd. .......... Appellant 3Rd Floor, Areekal Mansion, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aaaca6990Q] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Adv. Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 35Section 43(1)Section 92C

c) whether the Tribunal had erred in directing deduction under Section 80HH and 80-1 on the miscellaneous income of Rs.26,64,113 being income on sale of empty containers, were substantial questions of law and 16 Apollo Tyres Ltd. the High Court erred in dismissing the application of the Department on those questions and the High Court

CHERIAN VARKEY CONSTRUCTION CO.(P) LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

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

ITA 25/COCH/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Jun 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Smt.Parvathy Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamunna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 32(1)(iia)

section provide that no deduction shall be allowed in respect of – (A) (B) (C) Any office appliances or road transport vehicle. (D) Therefore, once it has been established that there is manufacture, the question to be decided is whether the assets on which additional depreciation has been claimed by the assessee is plant or machinery and do not fall under