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.

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

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,091Mumbai1,085Ahmedabad189Bangalore186Chennai144Kolkata96Jaipur77Raipur52Pune42Indore42Hyderabad37Surat32Chandigarh25Lucknow24Amritsar16Visakhapatnam12SC11Rajkot10Nagpur10Dehradun9Jodhpur8Guwahati8Karnataka6Patna5Cuttack5Ranchi5Telangana5Varanasi4Allahabad4Cochin3S. B. SINHA MARKANDEY KATJU1Calcutta1Agra1Panaji1Jabalpur1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1

Key Topics

Section 158B5Section 271(1)(c)4Depreciation4Section 323Section 260A3Section 1543Addition to Income3Section 143(2)2Section 1322Section 148

M/S.VIRTUAL SOFT SYSTEMS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-I

C.A. No.-007115-007115 - 2005Supreme Court06 Feb 2007
For Respondent: Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-I
Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with effect from 1.4.1976? FACTS (C.A. NO. 7115 OF 2005) For the assessment year 1996-97, the assessee-appellant returned an income of Rs. 1,32,44,507.29 subject to depreciation

SHARP BUSINESS SYSTEM THR. FINANCE DIRECTOR MR. YOSHIHISA MIZUNO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III N.D

The appeals are hereby disposed of in terms of

C.A. No.-004072-004072 - 2014Supreme Court19 Dec 2025

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA

2
Penalty2
Disallowance2
Bench:
Section 32(1)(ii)

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated by the assessing officer against the assessee. In the assessment order, assessing officer made several disallowances which are not the subject matter of the appeal. 11.4. Assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A), Chennai. During the appellate proceedings, assessee raised additional grounds of appeal which according to it were ignored

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,SIMLA vs. M/S GREEN WORLD CORPORATION

Appeals are disposed of with the aforementioned directions

C.A. No.-003312-003312 - 2009Supreme Court06 May 2009
Section 133Section 133ASection 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 80I

c) an order passed by a Commissioner under section 12AA or under clause (vi) of sub-section (5) of section 80G or under section 263 or under section 271 or under section 272A or an order passed by him under section 154 amending his order under section 263 or an order passed by a Chief Commissioner or a Director General

JT.COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,SURAT vs. SAHELI LEASING & INDUSTRIES LTD

Appeals stand allowed as mentioned hereinabove but with

C.A. No.-004278-004278 - 2010Supreme Court07 May 2010
Section 260

C) No. 5241 of 2007 etc…. (contd.) 6 was disallowed out of depreciation. Penalty proceedings under Section 271 (1) (c

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE

The appeal is allowed

C.A. No.-009720-009720 - 2014Supreme Court25 Sept 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

Section 10(15)Section 148Section 245CSection 245C(1)Section 271Section 32Section 80M

sections of IPC, relating to the matters covered in the present order. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was levied by the Assessing Officer for AY 1997-98 in respect of non disclosure of lease rental as income. The penalty order is annulled considering that the non disclosure was on account of RBI guidelines and the 32 subsequent disclosure of additional

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. A.R. ENTERPRISES

C.A. No.-002688-002688 - 2006Supreme Court14 Jan 2013
Section 132Section 158BSection 260A

271 OF 2013 (Arising Out of SLP (C) NO.7635 of 2008) J U D G M E N T D.K. JAIN, J. 1. Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions. 1 Page 2 JUDGMENT 2. This batch of six appeals, arises from separate judgments of the High Court of Madras in the appeals preferred by the revenue under Section

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX-I,NEW DELHI vs. VATIKA TOWNSHIP P.LTD

Appeals of the assessees are allowed deleting the surcharge levied by the

C.A. No.-008750-008750 - 2014Supreme Court15 Sept 2014
Section 113Section 132Section 154Section 158B

depreciation under sub-section (2) of section 32 shall not be set off against the undisclosed income determined in the block assessment under this Chapter, but may be carried forward for being set off in the regular assessments. Civil Appeal No.________ of 2014 & connected matters Page 17 of 57 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 540 of 2009) Page

MANSAROVAR COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI

C.A. No.-005769-005769 - 2022Supreme Court10 Apr 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

Section 26Section 6(3)

271 of the Act is CA 5769/2022 Etc. Page 32 of 67 concerned, the same is discretionary, however the interest is not discretionary. Therefore, for imposing penalty, principles of natural justice are required to be complied with, however in case of interest, the same being mandatory in nature and automatic there is no requirement of following principles of natural justice

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) 2 vs. M/S MAHAGUN REALTORS (P) LTD

The appeal is allowed, in the above terms, without order on costs

C.A. No.-002716-002716 - 2022Supreme Court05 Apr 2022

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 276C

depreciation, etc., are allowed to the transferee. Therefore, unlike a winding up, there is no end to the enterprise, with the entity. The enterprise in the case of amalgamation, continues. 31. In Maruti Suzuki (supra), the scheme of amalgamation was approved on 29.01.2013 w.e.f. 01.04.2012, the same was intimated to the AO on 02.04.2013, and the notice under Section

COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS (GENERAL), N. DELHI vs. GUJARAT PERSTORP ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeals are allowed

C.A. No.-008568-008569 - 2001Supreme Court05 Aug 2005
For Respondent: M/s. Gujarat Perstorp Electronics Ltd
Section 28(1)

271, were correct. CEGAT proceeded to state that after a survey on the entire case law, the Larger Bench in Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd. took the view that the law laid down by two-member Bench in Tractors & Farm Equipment Ltd. did not lay down correct law and accordingly overruled it. The decisions in other cases were correct and the said

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. M/S. HOOGHLY MILLS CO. LTD

The appeal is allowed

C.A. No.-005149-005149 - 2006Supreme Court22 Nov 2006
For Respondent: M/s. Hoogly Mills Co. Ltd
Section 32Section 4(1)

depreciation on the sum under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act. The CIT (Appeal) as well as the tribunal allowed the assessee’s claim and their orders were upheld by the High Court by the impugned judgment. Learned counsel for the appellant contended in this appeal that the expenditure on the taking over the gratuity liability of the employees