Search: depreciation | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

36 results for “depreciation”+ Long Term Capital Gainsclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,197 Delhi834 Bangalore351 Chennai333 Ahmedabad256 Kolkata199 Jaipur137 Chandigarh91 Hyderabad85 Pune73 Indore58 Raipur43 Cochin36 Visakhapatnam32 Karnataka29 Lucknow24 Cuttack22 Surat22 Guwahati18 Nagpur15 SC14 Amritsar11 Rajkot8 Jodhpur7 Panaji7 Telangana7 Agra6 Calcutta5 Kerala4 Varanasi2 Himachal Pradesh1 Jabalpur1 Allahabad1 Punjab & Haryana1 A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1 Patna1

Key Topics

Section 153A21 Section 143(3)20 Section 143(2)15 Addition to Income14 Section 220(2)12 Section 15412 Section 244A12 Section 50B9 Section 139(4)8 Long Term Capital Gains

M/S. JOSEPH GEORGE & CO.,,PATHANAPURAM vs. THE ITO, KOLLAM

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

ITA 323/COCH/2016[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2017AY 1996-97

Bench: S/Shri Abraham P. George, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

term capital gains on sale of building on 643,779 which depreciation was claimed and allowed Long term capital gains

KUMAR MADHAVANPILLAI.S,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 461/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 36 · Page 1 of 2

6

Rectification u/s 1546

ITAT Cochin

03 Oct 2024

AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Kumar Madhavanpillai S. Income Tax Officer -1(4) Chandra Press & Book Depot Aayakar Bhavan, Kowdiar P.O. Manjalikulam Road Thiruvananthapuram 695003 Vs. Thampanoor Thiruvananthapuram 695001 [Pan: Ajxps9299P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Girly Albert, Sr. D.R

Section 50Section 54

long term capital gain with indexation. 14. The other aspect relating to the cost of construction of Rs. 12.52 lakhs arises whether2/4th of such expenses have been claimed by the assessee relating to the depreciable

ACEELERATED FREEZE DRYING CO.LTD,ALAPPUZHA vs. DCIT, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed and the appeal of the

ITA 1286/COCH/2005[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Jun 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(14)Section 42Section 50BSection 50B(1)

depreciable assets. On the other hand under Section 50B the asset has to be first classified between long term or short term capital asset and then for the purpose of Sections 48 and 49 net worth has to be computed in terms of explanation 1 of the said Section. The capital gain

DCIT, ALAPPUZHA vs. M/S ACEELERATED FREEZE DRYING CO, LTD, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed and the appeal of the

ITA 714/COCH/2008[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Jun 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(14)Section 42Section 50BSection 50B(1)

depreciable assets. On the other hand under Section 50B the asset has to be first classified between long term or short term capital asset and then for the purpose of Sections 48 and 49 net worth has to be computed in terms of explanation 1 of the said Section. The capital gain

M/S.AMALGAM FOODS LTD,KOCHI vs. THE DCIT, CIR-1, ALLEPPEY, ALLEPPEY

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

ITA 110/COCH/2018[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Apr 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 2Section 43BSection 50(2)Section 50B

long term capital gain u/s. 50B of the Act. 6. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld. AR submitted that what has been sold represented depreciable

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), THRISSUR vs. SRI.K.P. JOHNY, THRISSUR

In the result, both the assessee’s and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 254/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dask.P. Johny Asst. Cit, Manappuram House Circle – 2(1) Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Thrissur 680307 Sakthan Thampuran Nagar [Pan:Acgpj4958G] Thrissur 680001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit, K.P. Johny Circle – 2(1) Manappuram House Aayakar Bhavan Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Vs. Sakthan Thampuran Nagar Thrissur 680307 Thrissur 680001 [Pan: Acgpj4958G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Sreedharan, Sr. Advocate (with Smt. Divya Ravindran, Adv. with him)For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 131(1)Section 133ASection 147Section 148(1)Section 69

long-term capital gain on 500 shares, at rs. 291.53 lacs and rs. 2.93 lacs respectively. Thus, while the assessee claims to have received only Rs.50 lakhs, as per the AOhe has received Rs.337.50 lakhs, even if indirectly in part, i.e., Rs.287.50 lakhs. Further, while the AO has based his findings on the sale agreement and, as we shall presently

SRI.K.P. JOHNY,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), THRISSUR

In the result, both the assessee’s and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 206/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dask.P. Johny Asst. Cit, Manappuram House Circle – 2(1) Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Thrissur 680307 Sakthan Thampuran Nagar [Pan:Acgpj4958G] Thrissur 680001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit, K.P. Johny Circle – 2(1) Manappuram House Aayakar Bhavan Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Vs. Sakthan Thampuran Nagar Thrissur 680307 Thrissur 680001 [Pan: Acgpj4958G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Sreedharan, Sr. Advocate (with Smt. Divya Ravindran, Adv. with him)For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 131(1)Section 133ASection 147Section 148(1)Section 69

long-term capital gain on 500 shares, at rs. 291.53 lacs and rs. 2.93 lacs respectively. Thus, while the assessee claims to have received only Rs.50 lakhs, as per the AOhe has received Rs.337.50 lakhs, even if indirectly in part, i.e., Rs.287.50 lakhs. Further, while the AO has based his findings on the sale agreement and, as we shall presently

MR.P.C.JOSE,,COCHIN vs. DCIT, COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed, and the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 54/COCH/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasp.C. Jose Deputy Commissioner Of Prop. Brothers Agencies Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Jews Street Vs. Kochi Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Of P.C. Jose Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Prop. Brothers Agencies Kochi Vs. Jews Street Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

long. So, however, to comply with the principle of natural justice, one final opportunity is provided for 24.01.2024. Issue notice by RPAD to the assessee as well as at the email ID afore referred.’ On 24.01.2024, whereat again none appeared nor adjournment application received, it was noted by the Bench that the only Power of Attorney on record is dated

CHENGAZHASSERIL THOMAS KURIAN,KOTTAYAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 474/COCH/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Sept 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 64

long term capital gain at Rs.7,38,244, quantum of which is not in dispute. Page 11 ITANos. 472-474/Coch/ 2022 & 47 to 50/Coch/2022 C.T. Kurian, V.D. Devasia vs. Asst. CIT 10.1 The assessee’s case before us, making reference to the definition of agricultural income u/s. 2(1A) of the Act, was that buildings are a part

CHENGAZHASSERIL THOMAS KURIAN,KOTTAYAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 472/COCH/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Sept 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 64

long term capital gain at Rs.7,38,244, quantum of which is not in dispute. Page 11 ITANos. 472-474/Coch/ 2022 & 47 to 50/Coch/2022 C.T. Kurian, V.D. Devasia vs. Asst. CIT 10.1 The assessee’s case before us, making reference to the definition of agricultural income u/s. 2(1A) of the Act, was that buildings are a part

V D DEVASIA,KOTTAYAM vs. ACIT, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 47/COCH/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Sept 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 64

long term capital gain at Rs.7,38,244, quantum of which is not in dispute. Page 11 ITANos. 472-474/Coch/ 2022 & 47 to 50/Coch/2022 C.T. Kurian, V.D. Devasia vs. Asst. CIT 10.1 The assessee’s case before us, making reference to the definition of agricultural income u/s. 2(1A) of the Act, was that buildings are a part

V D DEVASIA,KOTTAYAM vs. ACIT, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 49/COCH/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Sept 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 64

long term capital gain at Rs.7,38,244, quantum of which is not in dispute. Page 11 ITANos. 472-474/Coch/ 2022 & 47 to 50/Coch/2022 C.T. Kurian, V.D. Devasia vs. Asst. CIT 10.1 The assessee’s case before us, making reference to the definition of agricultural income u/s. 2(1A) of the Act, was that buildings are a part

V D DEVASIA,KOTTAYAM vs. ACIT, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 48/COCH/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Sept 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 64

long term capital gain at Rs.7,38,244, quantum of which is not in dispute. Page 11 ITANos. 472-474/Coch/ 2022 & 47 to 50/Coch/2022 C.T. Kurian, V.D. Devasia vs. Asst. CIT 10.1 The assessee’s case before us, making reference to the definition of agricultural income u/s. 2(1A) of the Act, was that buildings are a part

CHENGAZHASSERIL THOMAS KURIAN,KOTTAYAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 473/COCH/2022[ 2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 64

long term capital gain at Rs.7,38,244, quantum of which is not in dispute. Page 11 ITANos. 472-474/Coch/ 2022 & 47 to 50/Coch/2022 C.T. Kurian, V.D. Devasia vs. Asst. CIT 10.1 The assessee’s case before us, making reference to the definition of agricultural income u/s. 2(1A) of the Act, was that buildings are a part

V D DEVASIA,KOTTAYAM vs. ACIT, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 50/COCH/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Sept 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 64

long term capital gain at Rs.7,38,244, quantum of which is not in dispute. Page 11 ITANos. 472-474/Coch/ 2022 & 47 to 50/Coch/2022 C.T. Kurian, V.D. Devasia vs. Asst. CIT 10.1 The assessee’s case before us, making reference to the definition of agricultural income u/s. 2(1A) of the Act, was that buildings are a part

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. JCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

ITA 233/COCH/2024[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Naresh S., CAFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR

Section 153Section 154Section 220(2)Section 234DSection 244ASection 244aSection 250

capital than revenue expenditure is concerned. This first and foremost substantive ground stands rejected. 10. Learned counsel’s next argument in support of the remaining amount of its expenditure incurred on “QIP” issue of shares falls within section 35D(2)(c) of the Act; as the case may be; which has neither been considered in assessment findings

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED ,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

ITA 285/COCH/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Naresh S., CAFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR

Section 153Section 154Section 220(2)Section 234DSection 244ASection 244aSection 250

capital than revenue expenditure is concerned. This first and foremost substantive ground stands rejected. 10. Learned counsel’s next argument in support of the remaining amount of its expenditure incurred on “QIP” issue of shares falls within section 35D(2)(c) of the Act; as the case may be; which has neither been considered in assessment findings

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1)& TPS, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

ITA 286/COCH/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Naresh S., CAFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR

Section 153Section 154Section 220(2)Section 234DSection 244ASection 244aSection 250

capital than revenue expenditure is concerned. This first and foremost substantive ground stands rejected. 10. Learned counsel’s next argument in support of the remaining amount of its expenditure incurred on “QIP” issue of shares falls within section 35D(2)(c) of the Act; as the case may be; which has neither been considered in assessment findings

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

ITA 288/COCH/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Naresh S., CAFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR

Section 153Section 154Section 220(2)Section 234DSection 244ASection 244aSection 250

capital than revenue expenditure is concerned. This first and foremost substantive ground stands rejected. 10. Learned counsel’s next argument in support of the remaining amount of its expenditure incurred on “QIP” issue of shares falls within section 35D(2)(c) of the Act; as the case may be; which has neither been considered in assessment findings

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

ITA 283/COCH/2024[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Naresh S., CAFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR

Section 153Section 154Section 220(2)Section 234DSection 244ASection 244aSection 250

capital than revenue expenditure is concerned. This first and foremost substantive ground stands rejected. 10. Learned counsel’s next argument in support of the remaining amount of its expenditure incurred on “QIP” issue of shares falls within section 35D(2)(c) of the Act; as the case may be; which has neither been considered in assessment findings