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)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,147Mumbai1,128Ahmedabad329Bangalore188Chennai149Kolkata108Pune102Jaipur91Chandigarh67Hyderabad63Raipur54Surat53Indore51Visakhapatnam27Lucknow26Amritsar24Rajkot12SC11Cochin11Dehradun10Jodhpur10Nagpur10Guwahati8Agra8Karnataka7Cuttack7Telangana6Ranchi5Patna5Allahabad4Varanasi4Panaji4Jabalpur3D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1S. B. SINHA MARKANDEY KATJU1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Calcutta1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)9Section 1485Addition to Income5Section 143(1)4Section 143(3)4Disallowance4Reopening of Assessment3Section 21(5)2Section 1472

BISWAJIT NAYAK,ROURKELA, ODISHA vs. ACIT, ROURKELA CIRCLE, ROURKELA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 19/CTK/2024[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack15 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.19/Ctk/2024 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Biswajit Nayak, Vs Acit, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Qtr.No.B-174, Sector-1, Rourkela-769008 Pan No. :Aaqpn 2087 A (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15/05/2024

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Sarangi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

depreciation” in para 5.0 where no satisfaction was recorded with regard to the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. 5 Thus, it clearly evident from the assessment order that the AO was very much clear in his mind that the penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated only for furnishing inaccurate particulars

Section 1492
Depreciation2
Penalty2

ACIT, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for the assessment years

ITA 397/CTK/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri S.S.Poddar/N.Kedia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe, CIT DR
Section 143(3)

depreciation on the ground that the assessee is not engaged in the business of manufacturing or production of any article or thing. On appeal, the CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer by following the various judicial decisions including the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT s. Sesa Goa Ltd., 271

FAHMIDA INTERNATIONAL (P) LIMITED,BHUBANWEAWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 215/CTK/2020[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack26 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No. A No.69/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year: Year: 2008-2009 It(Ss)A No. A No.50/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year: Year: 2009-2010

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT

depreciation. 19. Ld CIT DR submitted that the Assessing Officer had made an assessment of Rs.15,39,73,507/-, which had been reduced by the ld CIT(A) to Rs.1,54,98,904/-. It was the submission that the ld CIT(A) ought not to have considered the audit report of the assessee to reduce the income. 20. In reply

FAHMIDA INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 400/CTK/2015[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack26 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No. A No.69/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year: Year: 2008-2009 It(Ss)A No. A No.50/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year: Year: 2009-2010

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT

depreciation. 19. Ld CIT DR submitted that the Assessing Officer had made an assessment of Rs.15,39,73,507/-, which had been reduced by the ld CIT(A) to Rs.1,54,98,904/-. It was the submission that the ld CIT(A) ought not to have considered the audit report of the assessee to reduce the income. 20. In reply

BISWA RANJAN PATTNAIL,ANGUL vs. ITO, DHENKANAL

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

ITA 193/CTK/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 May 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri B.R.Panda, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

depreciation, which according to the Assessing Officer, is an act of submission of inaccurate particulars and concealment of income and, accordingly, levied minimum penalty under section 271(1

BIKASH DEB,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 388/CTK/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.357 & 388/Ctk/2019 /2019 Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010 10 & 2010-11 Bikash Dev Bikash Dev, Flat No.101, Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle-2(1), Haraprity Haraprity Apar Apartment, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Vivekananda Vivekananda Marg, Marg, Old Old Town, Bhubaneswar. Town, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Ahepd 0737 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.K.Bal, Adv K.K.Bal, Adv Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 17/01 01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/01 /01/2023 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri K.K.Bal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 21(5)

1) of the Act. 5. The argument of the Id. AR of the assessee that the re-opening resorted to by the A.O. was based on surmises and suspicion rather than any concrete evidence is also absurd. The assessee has shown lower production of iron ores/manganese ores in the books of account than that reported by Deputy Director of Mines

BIKASH DEB,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT CIRCLE- 2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 357/CTK/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.357 & 388/Ctk/2019 /2019 Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010 10 & 2010-11 Bikash Dev Bikash Dev, Flat No.101, Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle-2(1), Haraprity Haraprity Apar Apartment, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Vivekananda Vivekananda Marg, Marg, Old Old Town, Bhubaneswar. Town, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Ahepd 0737 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.K.Bal, Adv K.K.Bal, Adv Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 17/01 01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/01 /01/2023 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri K.K.Bal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 21(5)

1) of the Act. 5. The argument of the Id. AR of the assessee that the re-opening resorted to by the A.O. was based on surmises and suspicion rather than any concrete evidence is also absurd. The assessee has shown lower production of iron ores/manganese ores in the books of account than that reported by Deputy Director of Mines