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.

19 results for “depreciation”+ Section 195(6)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai513Delhi498Chennai239Bangalore218Ahmedabad120Jaipur90Kolkata78Hyderabad40Chandigarh31Pune30Raipur30Cochin19Lucknow18Rajkot18Karnataka13Indore12Cuttack10Visakhapatnam10Surat10SC5Guwahati5Agra3Panaji3Patna2Nagpur2Jodhpur2Telangana2Amritsar2Kerala1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 80I15Section 143(3)13Disallowance9Addition to Income9Deduction8Section 10B7Section 144C(5)6Section 406Section 43B5Section 56(2)(ii)

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

195 (6) r. w. s Rule 37BB is one among the safeguards in the Act to prevent revenue leakage. 4. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in holding that the value of deemed export of Rs.13,67,2801 - in respect of exports made through the assessee's sister concern be also included for computation of deduction

4
Depreciation4
Exemption4

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

Section 195 of the Act being the payment in question does not give rise to or constitute income, which is chargeable to tax in India either on account of provisions of the Act or provisions contained in DTAA. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO erred in disallowing the claim of Foreign

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)

6. Against the above order of the Assessing Officer, the Draft Resolution Panel (DRP) has given a direction that USTIPL is rendering managerial, technical and consultancy services to the assessee by providing services of technical or other personnel. Thus the services come within purview of section 9(1)(vii) explanation 2 and provisions of section 194J are attracted in this

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)

6. Against the above order of the Assessing Officer, the Draft Resolution Panel (DRP) has given a direction that USTIPL is rendering managerial, technical and consultancy services to the assessee by providing services of technical or other personnel. Thus the services come within purview of section 9(1)(vii) explanation 2 and provisions of section 194J are attracted in this

AYUR GREEN AYURVEDA HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED,MALAPPURAM vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 565/COCH/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Mar 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. S. Seethalakshmiayurgreen Ayurveda Hospsitals Vs Dcit, Private Limited Cpc, Door No. 1/301 Ayurgreen Bengaluru. Ayurveda Hospitals, Kaladi Mlp Edappal, Malappuram-679585. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaica 4294 M

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 2Section 30Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

6. Another argument taken before us is that the disallowance made by the CPC Bengaluru while processing the return u/s 143(1) of the Act is beyond the scope of provisions of section 143(1(a) of the Act and, therefore, cannot be sustained. 7. We have carefully perused the decision of the co-ordinate bench in the case

KIZHAKKANIKODE THANKAPPAN MANOJKUMAR,PALAKKAD vs. DCIT(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013-2014 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal for assessment year 2014-2015 is allowed

ITA 227/COCH/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Oct 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Sri.Shivadas Chettoor, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Girly Albert, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

195 (Kar), wherein it was held as under: “For giving the benefit of section 36(1)(iii) to the assessee, what is necessary to examine is whether the assessee has used the borrowed capital for the purpose of business. If that is found true, then one need not examine further as to whether the asset purchased from the borrowed capital

KIZHAKKANIKODE THANKAPPAN MANOJKUMAR,PALAKKAD vs. DCIT(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013-2014 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal for assessment year 2014-2015 is allowed

ITA 228/COCH/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Oct 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Sri.Shivadas Chettoor, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Girly Albert, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

195 (Kar), wherein it was held as under: “For giving the benefit of section 36(1)(iii) to the assessee, what is necessary to examine is whether the assessee has used the borrowed capital for the purpose of business. If that is found true, then one need not examine further as to whether the asset purchased from the borrowed capital

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)

195 (Delhi) 2) Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Limited TC(A) No. 1123 of 2005. The Ld. AR also relied on the decision of Tribunal in the case of Sony India Private Limited vs. DCIT in ITA No. 1181/Del/2005 dated 23/08/2008. The Ld. AR also relied on the decision of Tribunal in the case of Nalco Water India Limited vs. ACIT

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)

195 (Delhi) 2) Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Limited TC(A) No. 1123 of 2005. The Ld. AR also relied on the decision of Tribunal in the case of Sony India Private Limited vs. DCIT in ITA No. 1181/Del/2005 dated 23/08/2008. The Ld. AR also relied on the decision of Tribunal in the case of Nalco Water India Limited vs. ACIT

INFOPARKS KERALA,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE JT DIRECTOR OF IT (OSD) EXEM), COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 75/COCH/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

section 2(15). However, the Court does not rule out any future claim made and being independently assessed, if GS1 is able to satisfy that what it provides to its customers is charged on cost-basis with at the most, a nominal mark-up. The foregoing neatly sums up the adjudication qua entities as the assessee, which is accordingly

INFOPARKS KERALA,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 77/COCH/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

section 2(15). However, the Court does not rule out any future claim made and being independently assessed, if GS1 is able to satisfy that what it provides to its customers is charged on cost-basis with at the most, a nominal mark-up. The foregoing neatly sums up the adjudication qua entities as the assessee, which is accordingly

INFOPARKS KERALA,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE JT DIRECTOR OF IT (OSD) EXEM), COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 76/COCH/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

section 2(15). However, the Court does not rule out any future claim made and being independently assessed, if GS1 is able to satisfy that what it provides to its customers is charged on cost-basis with at the most, a nominal mark-up. The foregoing neatly sums up the adjudication qua entities as the assessee, which is accordingly

THE ACIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.PTL ENTERPRISES LTD, COCHIN

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

ITA 84/COCH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sri.Mritunjaya Sharma, CIT-DRFor Respondent: S/Sri.Joseph Marcose, Sr.Advocate &
Section 56(2)(ii)

section 56(2)(ii) in its spirit and substance and held the impugned lease rent as chargeable to tax under the head "Income from Other Sources" as laid down u/s.56(1)(U) of the Act. 6. It is prayed that the orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer restored

THE ACIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.PTL ENTERPRISES LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 160/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 May 2019AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sri.Alok MitraFor Respondent: Sri.Abraham Joseph Markose
Section 56(2)(ii)

section 56(2)(ii) in its spirit and substance and held the impugned lease rent as chargeable to tax under the head "Income from Other Sources" as laid down u/s.56(1)(U) of the Act. 6. The case laws relied upon by the CIT(Appeals) are distinguishable on facts, since a particulars case has to be viewed

THE ACIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.PTL ENTERPRISES LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 161/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 May 2019AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sri.Alok MitraFor Respondent: Sri.Abraham Joseph Markose
Section 56(2)(ii)

section 56(2)(ii) in its spirit and substance and held the impugned lease rent as chargeable to tax under the head "Income from Other Sources" as laid down u/s.56(1)(U) of the Act. 6. The case laws relied upon by the CIT(Appeals) are distinguishable on facts, since a particulars case has to be viewed

THE ACIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.PTL ENTERPRISES LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 162/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 May 2019AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sri.Alok MitraFor Respondent: Sri.Abraham Joseph Markose
Section 56(2)(ii)

section 56(2)(ii) in its spirit and substance and held the impugned lease rent as chargeable to tax under the head "Income from Other Sources" as laid down u/s.56(1)(U) of the Act. 6. The case laws relied upon by the CIT(Appeals) are distinguishable on facts, since a particulars case has to be viewed

M/S.COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ADCIT, COCHIN

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 310/COCH/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

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

Section 143(3)Section 80I

195,224,205.22 Royalty from Fuel/BPCL for aircraft fuelling 4,530,104.14 Royalty Terminal Handling Services & Valet Services 3,016.631.56 Total 204,306,040.92 7.3 However, it was observed that the following heads of royalty income are incidental and related to providing better passenger services, but they cannot be treated as derived from airport operations. These include- Royalty Mobile Phone

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M.S COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 190/COCH/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Nov 2019AY 2005-06

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

Section 143(3)Section 80I

195,224,205.22 Royalty from Fuel/BPCL for aircraft fuelling 4,530,104.14 Royalty Terminal Handling Services & Valet Services 3,016.631.56 Total 204,306,040.92 7.3 However, it was observed that the following heads of royalty income are incidental and related to providing better passenger services, but they cannot be treated as derived from airport operations. These include- Royalty Mobile Phone

COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD,COCHIN vs. THE DCIT, COCHIN

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 344/COCH/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Nov 2019AY 2008-09

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

Section 143(3)Section 80I

195,224,205.22 Royalty from Fuel/BPCL for aircraft fuelling 4,530,104.14 Royalty Terminal Handling Services & Valet Services 3,016.631.56 Total 204,306,040.92 7.3 However, it was observed that the following heads of royalty income are incidental and related to providing better passenger services, but they cannot be treated as derived from airport operations. These include- Royalty Mobile Phone