DARWIN CRUIZ MANUEL,KOLLAM vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRIVANDRUM
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the issue of depreciation disallowance to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification and adjudication, as it was not properly examined by the lower authorities. The assessee was given three opportunities to plead and prove facts.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2014-15. The assessee chose not to press grounds related to Section 35AD deduction. The primary remaining issue was a depreciation disallowance.
What were the issues?
Whether the depreciation disallowance was correctly examined by the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) in light of the block of assets. The assessee's withdrawal of the Section 35AD deduction claim.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
Before: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh
O R D E R Per Bench This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2014-15 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Bengaluru [CIT(A)]’s DIN No. ITBA/APL/M/250/2023- 24/1054737656(1) dated 31.07.2023 in proceedings u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
Learned counsel for the assessee submits at the outset that the assessee does not wish to press for his first to fifth substantive grounds raising the issue of section 35AD deduction. Rejected in very terms.
Darwin Cruiz Manuel 3. Next comes assessee’s depreciation disallowance of Rs.1,03,06,817/-. It emerges during the course of hearing that neither the learned Assessing Officer nor the learned CIT(A) appear to have examined the same in light of the assessee’s corresponding block of assets in the depreciation schedule. That being the case, we deem it appropriate to restore this latter substantive ground back to the Assessing Officer for his actual verification and adjudication at the risk of the assessee to plead and prove the facts within three effective opportunities in consequential proceedings.
This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
More judgments on Section 35AD
- Fernandez Foundation, Hyderabad vs DCIT, Circle-8(1), HyderabadITA 143/HYD/2026[2021-2022]Status: Disposed5 Jun 2026AY 2021-2022
- DCIT-4(1), Indore vs Oddiville Foods and Frozen, IndoreITA 427/IND/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed20 Mar 2026AY 2018-19
- Income Tax Officer, Ferozepur vs Ms.Jatin Agro, Fort RoadITA 104/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Jan 2026AY 2017-18
- Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Ferozepur vs Ms.Jatin Agro, Fort RoadITA 103/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: Disposed15 Jan 2026AY 2014-15
- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Haryana Warehousing Corporation, Panchkula…ITA 456/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2025AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kallu Cable vs. The Commissioner State Goods And Service TaxUttarakhand · 5 Nov 2026
- Jishu Suklabaidya vs. The Union Of INDIA And 16 Ors.Gauhati · 4 Nov 2026
- M/S Sun Shine Metal Works vs. State Of U.P And AnotherAllahabad · 4 Nov 2026
- M/S Bansal Sanitary Store vs. State Of U.P. And 2 OthersAllahabad · 4 Nov 2026
- M/S Princess Girls Collection vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 4 Nov 2026
