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

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

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

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

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

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

Bench: Smt. Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

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

Bench: Smt. Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

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

Bench: Smt. Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)’].

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

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

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

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)

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

ADI MEDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

penalty under section 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That the learned CIT (Appeals] erred in law and on facts in not considering the fact that the appellant is subject to tax audit and depreciation

FRONTLINE ASSOCIATES,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Frontline Associates, Vs. Acit, 34/35, Ard Complex, Circle-53(1), New Delhi Second Floor, R.K. Puram, Sector-13, New Delhi Pan :Aaaff6558J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Arun Kishore, Ca Respondent By Shri G. Johnson, Sr.Dr

penalty is attracted. 4. That the claim for depreciation is compensatory in nature, disallowance now made out of depreciation, is allowable

SS GROUP (P) LTD,HARYANA vs. ACIT CIRLCE-4(1), GURGAON, HARYANA

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

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumarm/S. Ss Group (P) Ltd., Vs. Acit, Circle 4 (1), Ss House, Plot No.77, Sector 44, Gurgaon. Sector 45, Gurgaon – 122 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Aadcr8945B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Shri Somil Agarwal, Advocate Shri Saksham Agarwal, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.08.2025 Date Of Order : 17.09.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 07.02.2025 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Affirming The Penalty Order Dated 21.03.2022 Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’).

penalty levied on the above claim of depreciation on goodwill deserves to be deleted. Accordingly, penalty levied on the depreciation

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. ARCOTECH LTD (FORMERLY SKS LTD.)

The appeal is disposed of

penalty:- “5. We have heard rival contentions and gone through the relevant material available on record. Apropos the issue of claim of depreciation