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.

7 results for “depreciation”+ Section 151(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai603Delhi512Bangalore193Chennai143Jaipur84Chandigarh76Ahmedabad58Raipur49Kolkata46Pune39Hyderabad34Indore33Karnataka25Lucknow23Visakhapatnam21Amritsar17Cuttack17Guwahati14Rajkot12Jodhpur8Cochin7Surat7Agra6SC5Nagpur4Telangana3Ranchi2Varanasi2Panaji1Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 10A26Section 143(3)7Section 10B6Section 153D6Depreciation6Disallowance4Addition to Income4Section 92C3Section 1323Section 153A

M/S.APOLLO TYRES LTD,COCHIN vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 609/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Apollo Tyres Ltd. .......... Appellant 3Rd Floor, Areekal Mansion, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aaaca6990Q] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Adv. Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 35Section 43(1)Section 92C

151,122,545/- and R&D expenditure incurred outside India, the year end provisions for expenditure of Rs 2,86,39,000/-, addition of Rs. 29,99,048/- u/s. 7 Apollo Tyres Ltd. 40(a)(ia) of the Act and Gas Turbine expenditure claimed for deduction of cost of gas turbine overhauling charges of Rs. 5,59,29,379/-. However

3
Exemption3
Search & Seizure3

K.K.BUILDERS,KANNUR vs. DCIT, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 237/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

depreciation 6,26,61,743 6. Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). It was contended before the CIT(A) that the assessment order passed by the AO is invalid as the JCIT had granted a mechanical approval u/sec. 153D of the Act and the additions cannot be made in absence

K.K.BUILDERS,KANNUR vs. DCIT, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 236/COCH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

depreciation 6,26,61,743 6. Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). It was contended before the CIT(A) that the assessment order passed by the AO is invalid as the JCIT had granted a mechanical approval u/sec. 153D of the Act and the additions cannot be made in absence

K.K.BUILDERS,KANNUR vs. DCIT, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 235/COCH/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Aug 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

depreciation 6,26,61,743 6. Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). It was contended before the CIT(A) that the assessment order passed by the AO is invalid as the JCIT had granted a mechanical approval u/sec. 153D of the Act and the additions cannot be made in absence

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

2 Assessment Year 2007-2008 under section 10A of the Act can still be granted to the Assessee. - CIT vs. Flytxt Technology P. Ltd. (ITA Nos. 47 & 77/2015, dt. 10/10/2017 – Ker. HC) [confirming the Order passed by the Tribunal in ITA No.97/Coch/2014, dt. 28/08/2014 – Coch. Trib.] - CIT vs. Technovate E. Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.100/2012, dt. 26/02/2013

APTIV CONNECTION SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHI, KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 640/COCH/2023[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Nov 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Girly Albert, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 154

2,34,126/- + 91,94,342/- minus profit Rs. 7,42,151/-). 4. However, the AO was of the view that the assessee before claiming the exempt income u/s 10A of the Act has to set off of the profit of the eligible unit against the other units being Chennai and Cochin and if some positive income remains, which alone

APTIV CONNECTION SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHI, KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1) KOCHI, KOCHI, KERALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 641/COCH/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Nov 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Girly Albert, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 154

2,34,126/- + 91,94,342/- minus profit Rs. 7,42,151/-). 4. However, the AO was of the view that the assessee before claiming the exempt income u/s 10A of the Act has to set off of the profit of the eligible unit against the other units being Chennai and Cochin and if some positive income remains, which alone