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.

13 results for “depreciation”+ Section 10B(4)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi470Mumbai433Bangalore321Chennai169Kolkata126Pune85Ahmedabad79Hyderabad54Jaipur32Karnataka28Chandigarh19Lucknow17Cochin13Indore9Surat9Guwahati8Rajkot7Ranchi6Agra5Patna5Telangana5Visakhapatnam4Dehradun3Nagpur3Calcutta3Raipur2Cuttack2Varanasi2Orissa1Jodhpur1SC1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 10B32Section 10A20Section 2639Disallowance7Deduction7Section 12A6Section 144C(5)6Section 143(3)6Section 406Section 92C(3)

THE ITO,, ALAPPUZHA vs. M/S.EXTRAWEAVE P. LTD, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 448/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Extraweave Pvt. Ltd. Arattukulangara Complex 264B/Cmc 1 Vs. A.N. Puram, Alapuzha 688011 Sakteeswara Junction Cherthala 688524 Pan – Aabce5438L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 10BSection 10B(3)Section 143(2)Section 195Section 195(6)Section 40

section 10B unit has to be excluded at source itself and the AO erred in setting off unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.2,86,43,083/- against the income 11 M/s. Extraweave Pvt. Ltd. determined. I direct the AO to recomputed the income on the basis of my earlier findings in this appellate order and further direct him to allow deduction

4
Transfer Pricing4
Comparables/TP4

M/S.COOL MINDS TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 375/COCH/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Aug 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: CIT(A) the it was claimed by the Assessee that deduction under Section 10B of the Act was initially claimed by the Assessee under the bona fide belief that it is entitled to deduction under Section 10B of the Act. The CITT(A) dismissed the appeal of the Assessee agreeing with the Assessing Officer and holding that the Assessing Officer was justified in not considering the claim made by the Assessee under Section 10A of the Act. Now the Assessee is in

For Appellant: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263

section 10A. However, this claim of the assessee not examined by the lower authorities and they stick to one contention that the assessee claim u/s10B is not allowable. We are agreeing with the department that the condition for allowance of deduction u/s 10A and 10B are stood on different footing. However, the department cannot thrust upon the assessee to avail

THE JT CIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. ALLIANZ CORNHILL INFORMATION SERVICES P. LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the

ITA 185/COCH/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Assessment Year : 2010-11

Section 10BSection 144C(5)Section 92C(2)

10B to the assessee therein. However, the subsequent order passed by the Delhi High Court, a copy of which has been made available by the learned senior counsel appearing for the assessee, shows that the High Court itself directed that when the matter is reconsidered by the Tribunal as directed in the judgment above, the Tribunal shall examine the claim

M/S.ALLIANZ CORNHILL INFORMATION SERVICES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. JTCIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the

ITA 191/COCH/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Assessment Year : 2010-11

Section 10BSection 144C(5)Section 92C(2)

10B to the assessee therein. However, the subsequent order passed by the Delhi High Court, a copy of which has been made available by the learned senior counsel appearing for the assessee, shows that the High Court itself directed that when the matter is reconsidered by the Tribunal as directed in the judgment above, the Tribunal shall examine the claim

THE ACIT,CIR-1(1),, TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S.US TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL P. LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, both appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Objection of the

ITA 514/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

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

Section 10ASection 10A(5)Section 253(2)

4 The profits eligible for section 10A of the Act, Yes shall be the amount which bears to the profits of the business of the undertaking, the same proportion as the export turnover in respect of such computer software bears to the total turnover of the business carried on by the undertaking. Sub-section 5 For availing benefit under section

M/S.ABAD FISHERIES,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, CORPCIR-1(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

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

ITA 166/COCH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.P.K.SasidharanFor Respondent: Sri.Alok Mitra
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 153Section 263Section 31(1)(iia)Section 32(1)(iia)

10B will not help its cause since this Section works in a totally different plane altogether. The business carried on by the assessee namely, processing and export of frozen marine products would not come under `manufacture or production of new article or thing’ as held by 4 M/s.Abad Fisheries Private Limited. Hon’ble ITAT, Cochin Bench in the case

M/S.NAVIGANT BPM (INDIA) P. LTD(EARLIER KNOWN AS REVENUE MED INDIA P. LTD),TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, ground No.4

ITA 57/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Raghunathan SFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 10ASection 10BSection 14Section 143(3)Section 144C

4 SA No.62/Coch/2017. M/s.Navigant BPM (India) Pvt.Ltd. The assessee in the course of assessment had made an alternative claim that it was entitled to deduction u/s 10B of the I.T.Act. The A.O. rejected the alternative claim of the assessee made u/s 10A of the Act. The Assessing Officer was of the view that since the assessee has not made

M/S.AKAY FLAVOURS & AROMATICS P. LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesseee is allowed as indicated

ITA 491/COCH/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Feb 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Assessment Year : 2004-05

Section 10ASection 10BSection 139(1)Section 143Section 32(2)Section 72

4 covered u/s. 10B of the I.T. Act. In view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex vs. CIT (supra), we hold that deduction under section 10B of the Act is to be calculated before setting off unabsorbed depreciation

THE NEHRU MEMORIAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,KANHANGAD vs. ITO EXEMPTIONS, KANNUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 159/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. S. Seethalakshmithe Nehru Memorial The Income Tax Officer Education Society (Exemptions), Kannur Lakshmi Nivas Vs. Kanhangad - 671315 Kasaragod [Pan:Aabtt0633M] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 10Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2

depreciation, a non-cash ‘expenditure’, the excess cash outgo is limited to Rs.8.62 lakhs. The assessee has, thus, wrongly returned regular income at Rs. 11.19 lacs. Sure, and clearly, the financial statements being adverted to by us (PB pgs. 13-21) were not furnished along with the return of income. The same nevertheless are a part of the return

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

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2011-2012

ITA 475/COCH/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Raghunathan S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Santham Bose, CIT-DR
Section 144C(5)Section 190Section 194JSection 234BSection 40Section 92C(3)

section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T.Act, as it was considered retrospective effect by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Export Company (supra). Accordingly, this issue is remitted to the file of A.O. for fresh consideration. 14. As regards ground No.6 and its sub-grounds, the grievance of the assessee is that the Transfer Pricing Officer

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2011-2012

ITA 134/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Raghunathan S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Santham Bose, CIT-DR
Section 144C(5)Section 190Section 194JSection 234BSection 40Section 92C(3)

section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T.Act, as it was considered retrospective effect by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Export Company (supra). Accordingly, this issue is remitted to the file of A.O. for fresh consideration. 14. As regards ground No.6 and its sub-grounds, the grievance of the assessee is that the Transfer Pricing Officer

US TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed of statistical purposes

ITA 562/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Oct 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Us Technology International Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle - 1(1) 621, Nila, Technopark Campus 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Kariyavattom, Trivandrum 695581 Kowdiar [Pan: Aaacu5628B] Thiruvananthapuram 695003 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 144C(3)Section 92C(3)

10B to account for, inter alia, differences in (a) marketing adjustment, (b) research and development expenditure adjustment, (c) depreciation adjustment and (d) risk profile between the Appellant and the comparable companies. 5 US Technology International Pvt. Ltd. Ground No 6-Imputation of interest on recovery of expenses 6.1 The Ld. AO/DRP erred in imputing interest on recovery of expenses