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.

28 results for “depreciation”+ Revision u/s 263clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai549Delhi421Kolkata201Bangalore196Chennai176Ahmedabad95Hyderabad51Jaipur42Chandigarh37Pune36Raipur33Cuttack30Cochin28Rajkot25Indore24Surat24Lucknow23Karnataka16Jodhpur15Visakhapatnam14Agra4Amritsar4Nagpur4Patna4Kerala2Telangana2Varanasi2SC2Calcutta1Ranchi1Guwahati1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 26349Section 143(3)33Depreciation19Section 14716Revision u/s 26313Deduction13Addition to Income10Section 43B8Section 1488Disallowance

M/S.ROADS AND BRIDGES DEVELOPMENT CORPN OF KERALA LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

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

ITA 33/COCH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms. Remya S Menon, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32(2)Section 72(1)

Depreciation' as can be seen from Para 5 of the assessment order issued u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thus, the order of the learned AO cannot be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Hence, there is no requirement for revision u/s 263

Showing 1–20 of 28 · Page 1 of 2

8
Section 32A7
Reopening of Assessment7

KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE PCIT , TRIVANDRUM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 443/COCH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year:2018-19 Kerala Transport Development Finance .......... Appellant Corporation Limited, Thiruvananthapuram. Pan: Aabck1318F Vs.

For Appellant: Smt. Anoopa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 32

depreciation cannot be allowed as a deduction. 8. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The Parliament had conferred the power of revision on the Commissioner of Income Tax U/s. 263

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

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

ITA 287/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 The South Indian Bank Ltd., .......... Appellant Head Office, Mission Quarters, T.B. Road, Thrissur. [Pan: Aabct 0022 F] Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Respondent Circle-1(1) & Tps, Thrissur Appellant By: Shri Naresh C, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Veni Raj, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.08.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 07.02.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Private Scheduled Bank, Engaged In The Business Of Banking. The Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2017-18 Was Filed On 31/03/2018 Declaring Income Of Rs. 446,81,29,140/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Dcit, Circle-1(1) & Tps

For Appellant: Shri Naresh C, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(viiia)

depreciation on investments. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A) contending that AO ought not have disallowed a sum of Rs.14,10,36,183/- being difference in bad debts written off and also not allowed the additional claim of provisional bad and doubtful debts of Rs. 52 crores. However, learned CIT(A) considering

CSB BANK LTD.,THRISSUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1) & TPS THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 563/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri C. Naresh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shantam Bose, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 438Section 43B

u/s 115JB of the Act while adding provision for unascertained liability and depreciation attributable to evaluation of assets. In the assessment year 2017-18, he set aside all these issues to the file of AO for conducting verification and pass fresh assessment order after giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Against this assessee is in appeal before

CSB BANK LTD ( FORMERLY THE CATHOLIC SRIAN BANK LTD,THRISSUR vs. THE PR CIT, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 84/COCH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri C. Naresh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shantam Bose, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 438Section 43B

u/s 115JB of the Act while adding provision for unascertained liability and depreciation attributable to evaluation of assets. In the assessment year 2017-18, he set aside all these issues to the file of AO for conducting verification and pass fresh assessment order after giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Against this assessee is in appeal before

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

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 628/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoshri Sandeep Singh Karhailthe South Indian Bank Limited, Head Office, Mission Quarters, Tb Road, Thrissur Kerala - 680001 ............... Appellant Pan : Aabct0022F V/S Pcit, Aayakar Bhavan, North Block, ……………… Respondent New Annex Building Mananchira, Kozhikode Kerala.

For Appellant: Shri Naresh C, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)(v)

263 of the Act, in respect of this issue are as follows: – 5 “4. I have considered the matter. With regard to bad debt written off,deduction u/s 36(1) and depreciation on investments, the submission made and attached documents filed were seen. After consideration of the matter, it is seen that setting aside of the assessment on those issues

M/S SKYLINE E TECH,KOCHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(2), KOCHI

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

ITA 268/COCH/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Jan 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Radhesh Bhatt, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 32Section 32(1)Section 47

revised by the CIT-II, Kochi by order u/s. 263 of the Act dated 03.3.2011 setting aside assessment already passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 26.12.2008 for redoing the same. Subsequently notices were issued u/s. 143(2) on 27.11.2011. 4. During the assessment proceedings it was found that assessee firm over the years had developed a software called ‘Quadra

M/S SKYLINE E TECH,KOCHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(2), KOCHI

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

ITA 269/COCH/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Jan 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Radhesh Bhatt, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 32Section 32(1)Section 47

revised by the CIT-II, Kochi by order u/s. 263 of the Act dated 03.3.2011 setting aside assessment already passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 26.12.2008 for redoing the same. Subsequently notices were issued u/s. 143(2) on 27.11.2011. 4. During the assessment proceedings it was found that assessee firm over the years had developed a software called ‘Quadra

M/S.KALYAN JEWELLERS INDIA LTD,THRISSUR vs. THE ACIT, THRISSUR

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

ITA 744/COCH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Shaji Sreejith, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(1)Section 263Section 5(1)Section 80GSection 80G(4)

depreciation claimed. viii) New foreign asset in the nature of financial interest in any entity. ix) Low income shown by large contractors. x) Receipt of large value foreign remittance (Froml5CA). xi) Large difference in the opening stock of current year and closing stock of previous year shown in P86a/c as per Return of Income. ix). Large difference in the closing

DESAI HOMES,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 2(1), COCHIN

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 316/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Desai Homes .......... Appellant Dd Trade Tower, Kadavanthra Road Kaloor, Kochi 682017 [Pan: Aacfd0390E] Vs. Acit, Non-Corporte Circle 2(1) .......... Respondent C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road, Kochi 682018 Appellant By: Ms. Rohini Thampy, Ca Respondent By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.03.2025

For Appellant: Ms. Rohini Thampy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

263 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act") for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a partnership firm engaged in the business of builder and developer. The return of income for AY 2017-18 was filed on 29.10.2017 and the same was 2 Desai Homes revised on 30.10.2018 declaring

MALLELIL INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, THIRUVALLA

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

ITA 787/COCH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mallelil Industries Pvt. Ltd. .......... Appellant Attachakkal P.O., Pathanamthitta 689691 [Pan: Aafcm0761Q] Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Thiruvalla .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Surendran, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 24.08.2022 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of Companies Act, 1956. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Manufacture Of Rock Aggregates & Running A Quarry. The Return Of Income For Ay 2015-16 Was Fled On 22.09.2015 Declaring Income Of Rs. 2,54,10,720/-. Survey

For Appellant: Shri Surendran, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 133ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

depreciation of Rs. 11,80,715/-. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income in the remand proceedings, since the return of income was revised consequent to detection made by the department during the course of survey proceedings based on the direction of the ld. PCIT in the order u/s. 263

PARISONS FOODS PRIVATE LTD,CALICUT vs. DCIT , CIRCLE 1(1), KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 229/COCH/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Jun 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.(Through Virtual Hearing) Parisons Foods Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle - 1(1) 6/1183, Kunhipari Buildins Kozhikode Calicut 673032 Vs. Pan – Aaccp2898J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Surendranath Rao, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ilaiyaraja, K.S., Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.06.2024 O R D E R Per: Soundararajan K., J.M. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Challenges The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Cit(A)) Dated 01.02.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2005-06. 2. The Assessee Is In The Business Of Refining & Sale Of Crude Edible Oil & Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.10.2005 & The Assessment Was Completed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act By Accepting The Returns. Subsequently The Cit Invoked His Suo Moto Revision Powers Under Section 263 Of The Act To Disallow The Additional Depreciation Claimed U/S 32(1)(Iia) Of The Act & Directed The Ao To Complete The Assessment De Novo By Considering The Claim Of Additional Depreciation Of 15%. Thereafter The Ld. Ao

For Appellant: Shri Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ilaiyaraja, K.S., Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 32(1)(iia)

revision powers under Section 263 of the Act to disallow the additional depreciation claimed u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act and directed

V GUARD INDUSTRIES LIMITED,VENNALA vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 63/COCH/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Mar 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Sandeep Gosainv-Guard Industries Ltd. Principal Cit-1, 42/962, Vennala High School C R Building, I S Press Road, Vs. Road, Vennala, Kochi 682018 Ernakulam 682028 [Pan: Aaacv5492Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Anil D. Nair, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Prashant V.K., Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.03.2023 O R D E R Per: Bench This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Challenging The Revision Of It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) Dated 28/12/2018 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17 By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Kochi (‘Pr. Cit’ For Short) Vide Order U/S. 263 Dated 22/03/2021. 2. The Appeal, Filed On 08/03/2022, Though Delayed By 256 Days, Was Admitted In View Of The Blanket Condonation By The Apex Court In Suo Motu Wp(C) No.3/2020, Dated 10/01/2022, Excluding The Period From 15/3/2020 To 28/02/2022 In Reckoning The Delay In Computing Limitation Under Law & The Hearing Accordingly Proceeded With. The Assessee Is A Company Manufacturing Electrical Cables, Pumps, Solar Water Heaters, Etc. & Trading In Electrical & Electronic Goods. Revision Of It’S Impugned Assessment Is On Several Issues On Which The Revisionary Authority Found An Absence Or Lack Of Enquiry By The Assessing Officer

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prashant V.K., CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

u/s. 263 dated 03/02/2021 (PB-2, pgs.328-329); and the assessee’s reply dated 22/02/2021 (PB-2, pgs.330-358). 4.1 Issue # 1: Difference in stock reporting The issue stands delineated by the ld. Pr. CIT, thus: ‘In the ITR, part A-QD-Quantitative Units given for different products are identical, i.e., 107 units, 102 kgs, etc. AO has omitted to notice this

KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO, CIRCLE 1(1), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 41/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year:2018-19 Kerala Transport Development Finance .......... Appellant Corporation Limited, Thiruvananthapuram. Pan: Aabck1318F Vs. Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Circle-1(1), Trivandrum.

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Pradeep, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32

revised on 29/03/2019 disclosing NIL income. The assessment against the said return of income was completed by the AO vide order dated 23/03/2021 passed U/s. 143(3) of the Act accepting the returned loss. Subsequently, on the scrutiny of the assessment order, the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (in short “Ld. PCIT”) was of the opinion that the assessment

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL.,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 90/COCH/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri Surendranath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148

revised return was not in order for that year or subsequent assessment years including the instant year's computation, which was based on such wrong written down value of assets. Moreover, the assessing officer had observed that the closing balance of preceding year and opening balance of relevant year under general fund was different, hence, the assessee's books

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 88/COCH/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri Surendranath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148

revised return was not in order for that year or subsequent assessment years including the instant year's computation, which was based on such wrong written down value of assets. Moreover, the assessing officer had observed that the closing balance of preceding year and opening balance of relevant year under general fund was different, hence, the assessee's books

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 89/COCH/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri Surendranath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148

revised return was not in order for that year or subsequent assessment years including the instant year's computation, which was based on such wrong written down value of assets. Moreover, the assessing officer had observed that the closing balance of preceding year and opening balance of relevant year under general fund was different, hence, the assessee's books

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL ,KAKKANAD vs. THE DCIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 91/COCH/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri Surendranath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148

revised return was not in order for that year or subsequent assessment years including the instant year's computation, which was based on such wrong written down value of assets. Moreover, the assessing officer had observed that the closing balance of preceding year and opening balance of relevant year under general fund was different, hence, the assessee's books

ASIANET SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 473/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Raghunathan S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 37(1)

revision, appellant filed an appeal filed before this Tribunal and this Tribunal confirmed the revisionary order. The AO passed the consequential order to the order passed u/s. 263 vide order dated 18/12/2023 u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act at a total income of Rs. 21,85,99,699/- before set off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation

CABOT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTION PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI-1, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is disposed of on the afore-stated terms

ITA 609/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Oct 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dascabot Technology Solutions Principal Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax – 1 204, 2Nd Floor, Lulu Cyber Tower Vs. Cr Building , Is Press Infopark, Kochi 682042 Road, Kochi 682018 [Pan:Aadcc 9320K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Allen Joseph, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sajit Kumar Das, Cit- D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Agitating The Revision Of It’S Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Dated 20.12.2019 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Act (Pr. Cit), Vide His Order Dated 18.01.2022. 2.1 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Company In Software Development Business, Returned, For The Relevant Year, An Income Of Rs.3,67,574 Under The Regular Provisions Of The Act & A Book-Profit Of Rs.14,33,474 U/S.115Jb Of The Act, Paying The Higher Tax On The Latter. The Same Was Subject To Regular Assessment, Determining The Income Under The Regular Provisions At Rs. 8,10,750 & At The Returned Book-Profit Under Mat Provisions. The Assessment Record Was Subsequently Examined By The Learned Pr. Cit In Exercise Of His Revisionary

For Appellant: Shri Allen Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sajit Kumar Das, CIT- D.R
Section 10ASection 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

depreciation in a higher sum, even as the same would not impact the tax liability, being still higher u/s.115JB of the Act. As regards deduction u/s. 10AA of the Act, the amendment to the said section by Finance Act, 2017, w.e.f. 01.04.2018, made it amply clear that the deduction thereunder is to be with reference to the ‘total income’ computed