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.

17 results for “depreciation”+ Section 12A(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai261Delhi205Bangalore167Chennai90Ahmedabad89Jaipur53Kolkata40Pune40Lucknow34Chandigarh34Visakhapatnam32Hyderabad24Karnataka22Cuttack18Cochin17Amritsar16Indore14Ranchi7Agra5Nagpur4Rajkot4Patna3Jodhpur2Panaji2Raipur2Dehradun2Surat2Telangana2SC1

Key Topics

Section 12A35Section 1133Section 11(2)20Exemption17Section 143(3)16Section 14814Depreciation14Section 1478Charitable Trust6Addition to Income

THE DIT ( EXEMPTION), KOCHI vs. M/S.INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION COCHIN BRANCH, COCHIN

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

ITA 507/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

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

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

12A of the Act since the year 1995 and which is continue till date. 8.1. Further, there is nothing on record to suggest that in the intervening period there is any substantial change in the aims and objects of assessee. Therefore, keeping in view the aforesaid facts, it has to be decided whether the introduction of first proviso to section

THE ADIT ( EXEMPTION), KOCHI vs. M/S.INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION COCHIN BRANCH, COCHIN

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

6
Disallowance5
Carry Forward of Losses5
ITA 327/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

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

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

12A of the Act since the year 1995 and which is continue till date. 8.1. Further, there is nothing on record to suggest that in the intervening period there is any substantial change in the aims and objects of assessee. Therefore, keeping in view the aforesaid facts, it has to be decided whether the introduction of first proviso to section

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

12A(1)(aa) (also see: U.P. Forest Corporation v. Dy. CIT [2008] 297 ITR 1 (SC)). Further, the application for registration having been made by the assessee-society on 18.02.2015, it’s registration on 20.08.2015, w.e.f. AY 2015-16, is opposite [s.12AA(2)]. The question here would be if the contribution by way of corpus donation, a capital receipt, could

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned ITA Nos.88 TO 91/Coch/2022 Jubilee Mission Hospital, Thrissur Page 11 of 19 (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year).” 11.1 In our opinion, since there was no material brought on record by to come

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned ITA Nos.88 TO 91/Coch/2022 Jubilee Mission Hospital, Thrissur Page 11 of 19 (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year).” 11.1 In our opinion, since there was no material brought on record by to come

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned ITA Nos.88 TO 91/Coch/2022 Jubilee Mission Hospital, Thrissur Page 11 of 19 (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year).” 11.1 In our opinion, since there was no material brought on record by to come

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned ITA Nos.88 TO 91/Coch/2022 Jubilee Mission Hospital, Thrissur Page 11 of 19 (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year).” 11.1 In our opinion, since there was no material brought on record by to come

M/S.MAJ HOSPITAL,ERNAKULAM vs. THE DCIT9EXEMPTION), , KOCHI

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

ITA 499/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sri.K.M.JoseFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(4)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 271BSection 44ASection 44J

2 M/s.MAJ Hospital Edappally. part of the Hospital, and therefore the income of the Nursing School (a division of' the Hospital) is eligible for assessment u/s 11(1) of the Act. 3. Without prejudice to the above, even if the income of the Nursing School is assessable U/s 11(4), (4A); the provisions of section 44JB with regard

THE DHARMODAYAM COMPANY,THRISSUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 795/COCH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Niveditha K. Kammath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 25Section 31

section 25 of the Companies Act. The company was duly registered u/s. 12A of the Act. The return of income for AY 2009-10 was filed on10.09.2009 declaring Nil income after claiming exemption u/s. 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the ITO, Ward -1(1), Thrissur

THE DHARMODAYAM COMPANY,THRISSUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 794/COCH/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Niveditha K. Kammath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 25Section 31

section 25 of the Companies Act. The company was duly registered u/s. 12A of the Act. The return of income for AY 2009-10 was filed on10.09.2009 declaring Nil income after claiming exemption u/s. 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the ITO, Ward -1(1), Thrissur

THE DHARMODAYAM COMPANY,THRISSUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 792/COCH/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Niveditha K. Kammath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 25Section 31

section 25 of the Companies Act. The company was duly registered u/s. 12A of the Act. The return of income for AY 2009-10 was filed on10.09.2009 declaring Nil income after claiming exemption u/s. 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the ITO, Ward -1(1), Thrissur

THE DHARMODAYAM COMPAN,THRISSUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 793/COCH/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Niveditha K. Kammath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 25Section 31

section 25 of the Companies Act. The company was duly registered u/s. 12A of the Act. The return of income for AY 2009-10 was filed on10.09.2009 declaring Nil income after claiming exemption u/s. 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the ITO, Ward -1(1), Thrissur

GOOD SHEPHERED CENTRAL SCHOOL TRUST,THRISSUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 328/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri C.J. Romid, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

2. Since identical issues and facts are involved in these appeals, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 3. For the sake of convenience and clarity the facts relevant to the appeal bearing ITA No. 327/Coch/2025 for AY 2015-16 are stated herein. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a charitable

GOOD SHEPHERED CENTRAL SCHOOL TRUST,THRISSUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 327/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri C.J. Romid, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

2. Since identical issues and facts are involved in these appeals, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 3. For the sake of convenience and clarity the facts relevant to the appeal bearing ITA No. 327/Coch/2025 for AY 2015-16 are stated herein. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a charitable

THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S. MANOHAR HILL CHARITABLE TRUST, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical

ITA 368/COCH/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K.

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 28

2. The Ld. CIT(A) Kottayam erred in allowing the assessee to set off the unabsorbed depreciation brought forward from earlier years, as the assessee was enjoying exemption u/s. 12AA until AY 2005-06 for which they have claimed exemption for capital expenditure. 3. The decision of the Ld. CIT(A) is not acceptable as the Assessing Officer has rightly

THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S. MANOHAR HILL CHARITABLE TRUST, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical

ITA 367/COCH/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Apr 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George George K.

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 28

2. The Ld. CIT(A) Kottayam erred in allowing the assessee to set off the unabsorbed depreciation brought forward from earlier years, as the assessee was enjoying exemption u/s. 12AA until AY 2005-06 for which they have claimed exemption for capital expenditure. 3. The decision of the Ld. CIT(A) is not acceptable as the Assessing Officer has rightly

THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S. MANOHAR HILL CHARITABLE TRUST, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical

ITA 366/COCH/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri George George K.

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 28

2. The Ld. CIT(A) Kottayam erred in allowing the assessee to set off the unabsorbed depreciation brought forward from earlier years, as the assessee was enjoying exemption u/s. 12AA until AY 2005-06 for which they have claimed exemption for capital expenditure. 3. The decision of the Ld. CIT(A) is not acceptable as the Assessing Officer has rightly