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.

76 results for “depreciation”+ Section 271(1)(c)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,001Mumbai938Ahmedabad189Bangalore179Chennai127Jaipur77Kolkata76Raipur52Pune41Hyderabad37Indore37Chandigarh25Lucknow23Amritsar16Visakhapatnam12Surat12SC11Rajkot8Jodhpur8Guwahati6Karnataka6Patna5Ranchi5Allahabad4Telangana4Varanasi4Cuttack3Nagpur3Dehradun3Cochin2Jabalpur1Panaji1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Calcutta1S. B. SINHA MARKANDEY KATJU1D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)71Section 271(1)(c)51Section 27445Section 115J41Depreciation33Addition to Income33Section 14724Deduction24Section 14A22Section 80I

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 which was sought to be rectified and a bona fide explanation in this regard., whereby, the said amount was offered for taxation. Going by the various court decisions as well as Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c

Showing 1–20 of 76 · Page 1 of 4

21
Penalty21
Section 26318

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-13(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S MAHABHARAT MOTORS MFG. CO. PVT. LTD., HOWRAH

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 90/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"ी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. टी. वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 271(1)(c)Section 71

271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). . 2. The AO noticed from the Tax Audit Report (TAR) in column 18 of Form 3CD of TAR that the opening WDV (written down value) of intangible asset as Rs. 32,12,50,000/- and the assessee had claimed the whole amount as deduction

MANOJ KUMAR CHOWDHURY ,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD - 61(4) , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2420/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am Manoj Kumar Chowdhury Vs. Ito, Ward-61(4), Kolkata

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

depreciation on asset/equipment which did not exist or which was never supplied, assessee had not only concealed particulars of its income, but had also furnished inaccurate particulars of income, therefore, penalty under section 271(1)(c

SHREE BALAJI PLYWOOD,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 48(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1520/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am Shree Balaji Plywood Vs. Ito, Ward-48(4), Kolkata

For Appellant: Shri Chirag Desai on behalf of Miraj D Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT DR
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

depreciation on asset/equipment which did not exist or which was never supplied, assessee had not only concealed particulars of its income, but had also furnished inaccurate particulars of income, therefore, penalty under section 271(1)(c

NATHMAL SARAF CHARITY TRUST,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 1(1)(EXEMPTION), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2120/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am Nathmal Saraf Charity Trust Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1)(Exemption), Kolkata

For Appellant: Shri Harshbardhan Bhardwaj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT DR
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

depreciation on asset/equipment which did not exist or which was never supplied, assessee had not only concealed particulars of its income, but had also furnished inaccurate particulars of income, therefore, penalty under section 271(1)(c

BINAGURI TEA CO. PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2160/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am Binaguri Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Kolkata

For Appellant: Smt. Puja Somani, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT DR
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

depreciation on asset/equipment which did not exist or which was never supplied, assessee had not only concealed particulars of its income, but had also furnished inaccurate particulars of income, therefore, penalty under section 271(1)(c

SHYAM SUNDAR HAZRA,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 33(4) , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2510/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am Shyam Sundar Hazra Vs. Ito, Ward-33(4), Kolkata

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT DR
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

depreciation on asset/equipment which did not exist or which was never supplied, assessee had not only concealed particulars of its income, but had also furnished inaccurate particulars of income, therefore, penalty under section 271(1)(c

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

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 have been initiated. Issue necessary forms.’ 24. The income of the assessee was thus assessed under Section 115JB and not under the normal provisions. It is in this context that we have to see and examine the application of Explanation 4. 25. Judgment in the case of Gold Coins (supra), obviously

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR vs. DEBEANJANA HARD COKE PRIVATE LIMITED, HETEDOBA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 564/KOL/2024[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jul 2025

Bench: the appellate proceedings or in the course of appellate proceedings.”

Section 10Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

depreciation and addition of Rs. 45,956/- on account of disallowance u/s. 10 r.w.s. 36(1)(v) of the Act. At the outset, the appellant claims that the AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) casually and without identification of the default for which penalty proceedings were initiated and the AO erred in imposing penalty u/s 271

MD. SHAMSAD ALAM,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-53(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 2124/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Apr 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2124/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2009-2010) Md. Shamsad Alam, Vs. The Ito, Ward-53(1), (Proprietor Of : M/S 2, Gariahat Road (S) M.S.Drum Suppliers), Kolkata-700068 25/6/F, Am Ghosh Road, Budge Budge, 24 Parganas (S), Kolkata-700137 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aftpa 5230 L .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Nirmal Kaushik, Fca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Saurabh Kumar Addl.Cit(Dr) सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 11/04/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 19/04/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2009-2010, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxxiii, Kolkata, In Appeal No.49/Cit(A)-Xxxiii/Ito Ward53(1)/Kol/12-13, Dated 17.09.2014, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 27/12/2011. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2009-10 On 30.09.2009 Disclosing Total Income Of Rs.1,93,600/-. The Return Of Assessee Was Processed U/S.143(1) Of The I.T. Act. Later On, The Assessee’S Case Was Selected Under Scrutiny U/S.143(3) Of The Act & The Ao Completed The 2 Md. Shamsad Alam

For Appellant: Shri Nirmal Kaushik, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)

depreciation on Tanker, Rs.1,33,737/-on account of discrepancies in Loan & Advances, Rs.2,87,105/-on account of interest paid for Tanker purchase, Rs.1,23,876/-on account of Tanker hire charges, and Rs.51,650/- on account of car maintenance. While making the assessment, the AO observed that assessee has claimed Car maintenance expenses whereas there was no motor

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD.,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RANGE - 7, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

ITA 356/KOL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with explanations there under, are initiated separately, for furnishing inaccurate particulars of its income.” 33. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to ld. CIT(A). The assessee before ld. CIT(A) submitted that the amended provisions of section 80IA of the Act provides that the profits of an undertaking providing telecommunication

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA vs. HUTCHISON TELECOM EAST LIMITED, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

ITA 343/KOL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with explanations there under, are initiated separately, for furnishing inaccurate particulars of its income.” 33. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to ld. CIT(A). The assessee before ld. CIT(A) submitted that the amended provisions of section 80IA of the Act provides that the profits of an undertaking providing telecommunication

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 7, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

ITA 357/KOL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with explanations there under, are initiated separately, for furnishing inaccurate particulars of its income.” 33. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to ld. CIT(A). The assessee before ld. CIT(A) submitted that the amended provisions of section 80IA of the Act provides that the profits of an undertaking providing telecommunication

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

ITA 673/KOL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with explanations there under, are initiated separately, for furnishing inaccurate particulars of its income.” 33. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to ld. CIT(A). The assessee before ld. CIT(A) submitted that the amended provisions of section 80IA of the Act provides that the profits of an undertaking providing telecommunication

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA vs. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD., KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

ITA 377/KOL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with explanations there under, are initiated separately, for furnishing inaccurate particulars of its income.” 33. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to ld. CIT(A). The assessee before ld. CIT(A) submitted that the amended provisions of section 80IA of the Act provides that the profits of an undertaking providing telecommunication

M/S VODAFONE EAST LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

ITA 431/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with explanations there under, are initiated separately, for furnishing inaccurate particulars of its income.” 33. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to ld. CIT(A). The assessee before ld. CIT(A) submitted that the amended provisions of section 80IA of the Act provides that the profits of an undertaking providing telecommunication

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

ITA 485/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with explanations there under, are initiated separately, for furnishing inaccurate particulars of its income.” 33. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to ld. CIT(A). The assessee before ld. CIT(A) submitted that the amended provisions of section 80IA of the Act provides that the profits of an undertaking providing telecommunication

DCIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

ITA 482/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with explanations there under, are initiated separately, for furnishing inaccurate particulars of its income.” 33. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to ld. CIT(A). The assessee before ld. CIT(A) submitted that the amended provisions of section 80IA of the Act provides that the profits of an undertaking providing telecommunication

EIH LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-8(1)KOL., KOLKATA

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

ITA 117/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 Eih Ltd V/S. Dcit, Circle-8(1), 4, Mangoe Lane, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Kolkata-700 001 Chowringhee Square, [Pan No.Aaace 6898 B] Kolkata-69 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Ravi Sharma, Ar अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Srihari, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 27-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 16-05-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, (Drp For Short) Dated 17.10.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata U/S 144C(13)/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 29.11.2016 For Assessment Year 2012-13 & Grounds Raised By Assessee Read As Under:- “1.0 Determination Of Arm'S Length Price For Corporate Guarantee Fees 1.1 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Tpo") & Accordingly Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld. Ao") Erred In Treating The Corporate Guarantee Extended By The Appellant To Its Associated Enterprise (Ae) As International Transaction & Dispute Resolution Panel (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Panel") Erred In Confirming The Same As An International Transaction Without Appreciating The Fact That It Does Not Fall Within The Ambit Of "International Transaction" U/S 92B Of The Act. 1.2 The Ld.Ao/Tpo & The Ld. Panel Failed To Appreciate The Fact That Corporate Guarantee Has Been Advanced By The Appellant As A Matter Of Commercial Prudence To Protect The Business Interest Of The Group By Fulfilling

Section 14Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 92B

c) of Explanation). The plain reading of provisions of sec. 92B(1) of the Act indicate that the various transactions mentioned in section 92B(1) of the Act, (i.e. ITA No.117/Kol/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 EIH Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Cir-8(1), Kol. Page 8 purchases, sales, provision for services, lending or borrowing or any other transaction) should have bearing

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 were initiated and notice u/s. 271(1)(c)/274 of the 2 Maa Engineering, AY- 2010-11 Act dated 11.03.2013 was issued and served on the assessee and imposed penalty of Rs. 12,96,181/- as there was loss