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.

1,427 results for “depreciation”+ Penaltyclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,427 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)91 Addition to Income73 Depreciation52 Penalty50 Section 143(3)47 Disallowance43 Deduction26 Section 6822 Section 14A18 Section 271(1)

MAKEMYTRIP (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 6514/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 194HSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

depreciation on Computer Peripherals wherein penalty of Rs 55,491 has been upheld. iii) Difference in amount of depreciation on ‘Website

HINDUSTAN GENERAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 6342/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Showing 1–20 of 1,427 · Page 1 of 72

...

16

Bench:

Section 147Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

penalty in respect of the depreciation holding that the assessee had filed inaccurate particulars of income by claiming depreciation when

HINDUSTAN GENERAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 6343/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 147Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

penalty in respect of the depreciation holding that the assessee had filed inaccurate particulars of income by claiming depreciation when

CJ INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6150/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.R.R. Kumar, Senior DR

Section 147Section 27Section 271(1)(c)Section 32

depreciation allowance was sustained. The order passed by Tribunal in Assessment Year 2001-02 has thereafter also been upheld by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court vide order dated 18.11.2010 reported in 197 Taxman 230 (Del). 5. The AO in his order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 30.03.2012 has levied penalty

CJ INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6149/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.R.R. Kumar, Senior DR

Section 147Section 27Section 271(1)(c)Section 32

depreciation allowance was sustained. The order passed by Tribunal in Assessment Year 2001-02 has thereafter also been upheld by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court vide order dated 18.11.2010 reported in 197 Taxman 230 (Del). 5. The AO in his order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 30.03.2012 has levied penalty

M/S. NEEL METAL PRODUCTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by assessee for AY 2007-08

ITA 6567/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt.Naina Soin Kapil, Sr.DR

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on additions on account of disallowance of depreciation of Rs.1,02,719/- on electric fittings

M/S. NEEL METAL PRODUCTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by assessee for AY 2007-08

ITA 6568/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt.Naina Soin Kapil, Sr.DR

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on additions on account of disallowance of depreciation of Rs.1,02,719/- on electric fittings

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NEEL METAL PRODUCTS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by assessee for AY 2007-08

ITA 6377/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt.Naina Soin Kapil, Sr.DR

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on additions on account of disallowance of depreciation of Rs.1,02,719/- on electric fittings

METRO TYRES LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1873/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv & ShFor Respondent: Sh. Anshul, Sr. DR

Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

penalty on disallowance of depreciation on non-compete fees, ignoring the fact that the claim of depreciation is a bona

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, we confirm the order of the Ld

ITA 189/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Acountant Member

For Appellant: Sh. R.S. Rawal, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &

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

penalty was time barred without examine the facts of the case and a misstated argument of the assessee before the AO, the assessee never argued on this issue. 4 Whether on the facts & in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing relief on account of additions on Advance Against Depreciation

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, we confirm the order of the Ld

ITA 191/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Acountant Member

For Appellant: Sh. R.S. Rawal, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &

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

penalty was time barred without examine the facts of the case and a misstated argument of the assessee before the AO, the assessee never argued on this issue. 4 Whether on the facts & in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing relief on account of additions on Advance Against Depreciation

DCIT, CIRCLE- 11(1), NEW DELHI vs. HOTLINE CPT LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4522/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 154Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 342

penalty in respect of depreciation on computers, whereas there is no separate computation of the depreciation on computers, either in the assessment

M/S. CHINTELS INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 3793/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaasstt. Year: 2008-09 Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Asstt. Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Chandra Dubey, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271(1)

penalty of Rs. 28,84,021/- on account of disallowance of depreciation software made by the AO. 3. On the facts

M/S. CHINTELS INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 3791/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaasstt. Year: 2008-09 Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Asstt. Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Chandra Dubey, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271(1)

penalty of Rs. 28,84,021/- on account of disallowance of depreciation software made by the AO. 3. On the facts

M/S. CHINTELS INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 3792/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaasstt. Year: 2008-09 Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Asstt. Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Chandra Dubey, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271(1)

penalty of Rs. 28,84,021/- on account of disallowance of depreciation software made by the AO. 3. On the facts

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, GURGAON

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6068/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N K Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri KVSR Krishna CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Chander Sharma, CIT DR

Section 154Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 32Section 43(1)Section 43(6)Section 45(7)

penalty u/s 271 (1 )(c) on claim of depreciation on Temporary Wooden structures like interiors, glow signs etc; taken over

ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 5866/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N K Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri KVSR Krishna CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Chander Sharma, CIT DR

Section 154Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 32Section 43(1)Section 43(6)Section 45(7)

penalty u/s 271 (1 )(c) on claim of depreciation on Temporary Wooden structures like interiors, glow signs etc; taken over

NEW MANGALORE PORT ROAD COMPANY LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), DELHI

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

ITA 1053/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.1053/Del/2025, A.Y. 2015-16 New Mangalore Port Road Deputy Commissioner Of Company Limited, Income Tax, Circle-16(1), D-21, Corporate Park, Vs. C. R. Building, I P Estate, Sector-21, Dwarka, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabcn9106E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Khushboo Singhal, Ca Respondent By Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 21/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2015-16 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.09.2022 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

Section 271(1)(c)Section 32Section 36(1)(iii)

penalty of Rs.19,25,64,233/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the above mentioned disallowances of depreciation

M/S. CAPARO MARUTI LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2527/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 271(1)(c)

depreciation of Rs.57,94,549/- and fine & penalty of Rs.11,04,004/-. The Assessing Officer imposed penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act on the basis

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. ORIENTAL NAGPUR BYE PASS CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3169/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Vs. M/S. Oriental Nagpur Bye Central Circle-26, Pass Construction Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi 21/48, Commercial Complex, Malcha Marg, Diplomatic Enclave, New Delhi Pan :Aabco2017M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

depreciation. The learned CIT(A) deleted the penalty holding that the claim of depreciation in the original return was made