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.

212 results for “depreciation”+ Penaltyclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,431Mumbai1,345Ahmedabad462Bangalore308Chennai267Kolkata212Jaipur174Pune168Chandigarh141Hyderabad113Raipur65Surat61Indore59Visakhapatnam35Cochin35Lucknow31Guwahati28SC26Cuttack26Amritsar24Rajkot23Karnataka22Nagpur21Jodhpur16Dehradun13Telangana10Agra9Patna9Panaji6Kerala6Ranchi5Calcutta4Jabalpur4Allahabad3Varanasi1Rajasthan1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)69Addition to Income51Disallowance47Section 14A46Depreciation41Penalty39Section 14836Section 43B35Deduction30Section 250

ST. PETER SCHOOL,DURGAPUR vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 820/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2018-19 St. Peters School Ito, Ward-2(1), Exemption, Na, Mira Bai Road B Zone, Durgapur. Vs Durgapur, Burdwan-713204 (Pan: Aaatb9527D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Subho Chakraborty, Ar Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Additional Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.10.2024 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.02.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’].

For Appellant: Shri Subho Chakraborty, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Additional CIT, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 11(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 274

penalty was levied by the AO on alleged under-reporting of income due to mis- reporting specifically the disallowance of depreciation

Showing 1–20 of 212 · Page 1 of 11

...
26
Section 115J26
Section 26325

TIRIYOGI NARAYAN SINGH,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 29, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1862/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)

depreciation. He also initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and, thereafter, imposed the impugned penalty. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed

TIRIYOGI NARAYAN SINGH,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 29, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1863/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)

depreciation. He also initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and, thereafter, imposed the impugned penalty. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed

DCIT, CC-XIX, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ATHA MINES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 601/KOL/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Apr 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri A.K.Tibrewal, FCA
Section 132Section 132(4)

Depreciation taken separately Rs.75,880/- Add: Penalty for delay in T.D.S. Rs. 3,000/- Add: Penalty for Sales Tax Rs.4

DCIT, CIRCLE - 2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. LMJ LOGISTICS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1800/KOL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jun 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2007-08

Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80BSection 80I

penalty & fines, which are not allowable) 9. Depreciation Rs.11,81,721.00 Rs.37,78,784.00 Net profit Rs.1,60,30,614 (a) Therefore

DCIT, CIR-11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S P C CHANDRA (JEWELLERS) PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1197/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Feb 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2011-12 Dct, Crcle-11(2), V/S. M/S P.C. Chandra P-7, Chowringhee (Jewellers), Pvt. Ltd., Square, Kolkta-69 49C, Gaiahat Road, Kolkata-19 [Pan No.Aabcp 8654 M] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 11-01-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 02-02-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata Dated 06.07.2015. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-11, Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 28.08.2013 For Assessment Year 2011-12. Revenue Has Raised Following Ground:- “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Assessee Ld. Cit Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs.23,68,786/- Imposed U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The It Act. 1961. 2. That The Appellant Craves For Leave To Add, Delete Or Modify Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal Before Or All The Time Of Hearing.”

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

depreciation claimed by assessee on land and added to the total income of assessee. However, AO in his assessment proceedings initiated penalty

D.C.I.T CIR - 11,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SHALIMAR PAINTS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1293/KOL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Dec 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ]

For Appellant: Shri S.Venkatramani, JCIT.Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Chaturvedi, FCA
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 35

penalty was imposed on the assessee by the AO are as follows :- The Assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing of paints and varnishes. In the return of income filed for AY 2004-05, the Assessee while computing income from business claimed 100% depreciation

DCIT, CC-XXVII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S HARBANSLAL MALHOTRA & SONS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 855/KOL/2014[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 May 2017AY 2004-2005

Bench: The A.O. 04. That In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That It Is A Fit Case For Imposition Of Penalty U/S 27L(L)(C) Of The Act. 05. That The Department Craves Leave To Add, Modify Or Alter Any Of The Above Ground(S) Of Appeal And/Or Adduce Additional Evidence At The Time Of Hearing Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Pinaki Mukherjee, JCIT, ld. Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri V.N Purohit, FCA, ld.AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 27lSection 27l(1)

depreciation of Rs.4,54,600/- on machinery put to use by 31-03-2004. These two additions were added back to the total income of the assessee. This action of the AO was confirmed by the CIT-A in the first appellate proceeding. 5. Thereafter, the AO initiated penalty

ITO, WARD - 7(2), KOLKATA vs. OSD COKE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 1873/KOL/2008[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri P. B. Pramanik, JCITFor Respondent: S/Shri J. P. Khaitan & J. M. Thard, Advocates
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 31Section 32Section 37(1)

depreciation of Rs.5,83,244/- (50% of 46,65,954). Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of I. T. Act are initiated

ADDL.CIT, RANGE - 7, KOLKATA vs. OSD COKE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 1874/KOL/2008[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri P. B. Pramanik, JCITFor Respondent: S/Shri J. P. Khaitan & J. M. Thard, Advocates
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 31Section 32Section 37(1)

depreciation of Rs.5,83,244/- (50% of 46,65,954). Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of I. T. Act are initiated

DCIT, CIR-12, KOLKATA, KARNATAKA vs. M/S ASSOCIATED ALCOHOLS & BREWERIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

ITA 749/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jun 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year:2009-10 Dcit, Circle-12, P-7, V/S. M/S Associated Alcohols Chowringhee Square & Breweries Ltd. 106A, Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Shyam Bazar, Station, Floor, Kolkata-69 Ground Floor, Kolkata-05 [Pan No.Aaeca 2674 B] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 80J

penalty could not have been imposed even in respect of claim of depreciation made by the assessee. this al is accordingly

M/S. BARDHAMAN DHARMARAJ PAPER MILL PVT. LTD.,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BURDWAN

ITA 1187/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year : 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 68

depreciation on account of addition to shad and building and addition to plant and machinery. Since the assessee has concealed particular of income penalty

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BURDWAN, BURDWAN vs. M/S. BARDHAMAN DHARMARAJ PAPER MILL PVT. LTD., BURDWAN

ITA 910/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year : 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 68

depreciation on account of addition to shad and building and addition to plant and machinery. Since the assessee has concealed particular of income penalty

M/S MAA ENGINEERING,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-51, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 243/KOL/2017[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Mar 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

depreciation claimed by the assessee and added back the same to the total income of the assessee. Thereafter penalty proceedings

AMAN TANNERY ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 29(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1802/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2013-14 Aman Tannery V/S. Income Tax Officer 93/1D, Tiljala Road, Ward-29(1), 54/1 Rafi Park Circus, Kolkata-46 Aahmed Kidwai Road, [Wellesly Road], 5Th [Pan No.Aakfa 7826 J] Floor, Kolkata-700 016 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent None अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 17-12-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 23-12-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8 Kolkata’S Order Dated 28.06.2018 Passed In Case No. Cit(A),Kolkata-8/10190/2016-17, Confirming The Assessing Officer’S Action Imposing Penalty Of ₹30,15,402/- In Order Dated 19.09.2016 In Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; ‘The Act’. Case Called Twice. None Appears At Assessee’S Behest. It Is Accordingly Proceeded Ex Parte. 2. We Have Heard The Learned Departmental Representative Strongly Supporting The Impugned Penalty Of ₹9,31,759/- Imposed In Both The Lower Proceedings On The Ground That The Assessee’S Depreciation Claim Of

Section 271(1)(c)

penalty of ₹9,31,759/- imposed in both the lower proceedings on the ground that the assessee’s depreciation claim

D.C.I.T.CIR - VIII,KOL, KOLKATA vs. SHRI RAM CHANDRA AGARWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed as stated above

ITA 1700/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Chhaparia,FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Md. S.S Alam, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)

penalty in respect of wrong claim under section 80P of the Act will also apply to wrong claim under the head of depreciation

D.C.I.T CIR - 1,KOLATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PARIJAT VYAPAAR PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2241/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)

depreciation of Rs.28,17,935/- @ 30% on payloaders which are also being used in the business of running them on hire. As penalty

D.C.I.T CIR - 1,KOLATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PARIJAT VYAPAAR PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2242/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)

depreciation of Rs.28,17,935/- @ 30% on payloaders which are also being used in the business of running them on hire. As penalty

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. ADARSH HEIGHTS PVT LTD, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1949/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250Section 253Section 270A

penalty in this case stating that addition of Rs.5,10,82,386/- as disallowance interest and of 35,84,617/- (Rs.27,13,591/- & Rs.8,71,026/- ) as disallowance of depreciation

M/S AKANKSHA VINIYOG LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD -1(4), KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1555/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ] Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

depreciation and insurance expenses to the total income of the assessee. In respect of the addition made in the course of assessment proceedings the AO initiated penalty