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.

4 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Depreciationclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi907Mumbai866Ahmedabad295Bangalore135Chennai90Pune90Jaipur88Kolkata79Chandigarh52Raipur50Hyderabad43Indore38Surat32Visakhapatnam26Amritsar24Lucknow23Rajkot11Nagpur10Jodhpur8Cochin8Dehradun8Agra7Guwahati6Ranchi5Karnataka4SC4Patna3Panaji3Allahabad3Cuttack3Jabalpur2Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 260A6Section 2606Section 271(1)(c)5Section 143(1)4Section 1484Penalty3Section 115J2Section 143(2)2Section 143(3)

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GULBARGA vs. M/S MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/2564/2005HC Karnataka13 Dec 2012

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

Section 260Section 260A

depreciation penalty is not leviable. The additions in assessment proceedings will not automatically lead to inference of levying penalty. This Court in the case of GUJAMGADI reported in 290 ITR 168, has held that every addition to income by the Income Tax Officer will not 57 automatically attract levy of penalty. Similar view has also been taken by this Court

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S BPL SANYO FINANCE LTD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is

ITA/652/2006HC Karnataka11 Sept 2013

The Tribunal Was Arising From The Order Dated 4Th June 2004 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Bangalore (For Short “The

2
Bench:
Section 115JSection 133Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

271(1) (c) of the Act is legally sustainable in the light of the fact, which surfaced in the survey under Section 133-A of Act, that claim of 100% depreciation made by the respondent-assessee was not only false but was made in respect of non-existent goods, and that penalty is liable to be levied not only

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MAKINO ASIA PVT LTD

ITA/340/2007HC Karnataka25 Sept 2013

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 260Section 271(1)(c)Section 72

271(1)(c)(iii) of the Act i.e., Rs.41,04,239/-. It would be necessary to notice the observations made by the Assessing officer for levying penalty, which read thus:- “The assessee company had filed its original return of income on 31.10.2002. While filing this return, the assessee company was aware that the return filed for asst.year

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.WINTAC LTD.,

The appeal is allowed in part

ITA/910/2006HC Karnataka19 Sept 2013

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)

U/s. 260A of I.T. Act, 1961 arising out of Order dated 02-01-2006 passed in ITA.No.81/Bang/2005 for the year 2001-02, praying that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein and allow the appeal and set aside the orders passed by the ITAT, Bangalore in ITA.No.81/Bang/2005 dated