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.

8 results for “depreciation”+ Section 201(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai574Delhi389Bangalore244Chennai183Kolkata98Raipur97Ahmedabad77Hyderabad71Jaipur63Surat26Amritsar21Pune21Karnataka17Indore13Lucknow12Visakhapatnam8Cochin8Nagpur7Telangana7SC6Kerala5Jodhpur4Chandigarh4Rajkot4Ranchi4Agra4Dehradun3Panaji3Cuttack3Punjab & Haryana2Tripura1Jabalpur1Rajasthan1Allahabad1Calcutta1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)13Disallowance8Section 1474Section 1484Section 40A(3)4TDS4Deduction4Addition to Income4Section 92C3Depreciation

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

depreciation; the question is whether the claim of the assessee conforms the deduction permissible under Section 37(1) of the Act. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the preoperative expenses amounting to Rs.26,97,79,538/- incurred by the assessee are revenue expenses, and are correctly so held by the Tribunal

3
Section 7A2
Section 10(31)2

THE KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LIMITED,KOLLAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, KOLLAM

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

ITA 918/COCH/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2007-08 The Kerala Minerals & Metals Ltd. .......... Appellant Sankaramangalam, Chavara, Kollam 691583 [Pan: Aaact8118R] Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Respondent Circle - 1, Kollam Appellant By: Shri Rajeev R., Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 13.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.05.2025

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev R., CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)

201. This 4 ITA Nos. 684 & 685/Coch/2010 Tribunal find that the replacement said to be made by the assessee has to be examined in the light of law laid down by the apex court in the case of Saravana Spinning 3 The Kerala Minerals and Metals Ltd. Mills P Ltd (supra). Since the matter has not been examined

TANSEER KAJA,KARINGARAPULLY vs. ITO CIRCLE 1, PALAKKAD

In the result, all the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 77/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Shameem Ahamed, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

201 1-12 on 14/10/2011 admitting a total income of Rs.12,29,649/-. The original assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 28.03.2014 with assessed income of Rs.15,29,650/-. Subsequently, it was seen from the records that the assessee wrongly e-filed the return for A Y 2011-12 instead of A.Y 2010-11 ITA Nos.74 to 77/Coch/2024 Thanseer

TANSEER KAJA,KARINGARAPULLY vs. ITO CIRCLE 1, PALAKKAD

In the result, all the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 75/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Shameem Ahamed, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

201 1-12 on 14/10/2011 admitting a total income of Rs.12,29,649/-. The original assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 28.03.2014 with assessed income of Rs.15,29,650/-. Subsequently, it was seen from the records that the assessee wrongly e-filed the return for A Y 2011-12 instead of A.Y 2010-11 ITA Nos.74 to 77/Coch/2024 Thanseer

TANSEER KAJA,KARINGARAPULLY vs. ITO CIRCLE 1, PALAKKAD

In the result, all the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 76/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Shameem Ahamed, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

201 1-12 on 14/10/2011 admitting a total income of Rs.12,29,649/-. The original assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 28.03.2014 with assessed income of Rs.15,29,650/-. Subsequently, it was seen from the records that the assessee wrongly e-filed the return for A Y 2011-12 instead of A.Y 2010-11 ITA Nos.74 to 77/Coch/2024 Thanseer

TANSEER KAJA,KARINGARAPULLY vs. ITO CIRCLE 1, PALAKKAD

In the result, all the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 74/COCH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Shameem Ahamed, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

201 1-12 on 14/10/2011 admitting a total income of Rs.12,29,649/-. The original assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 28.03.2014 with assessed income of Rs.15,29,650/-. Subsequently, it was seen from the records that the assessee wrongly e-filed the return for A Y 2011-12 instead of A.Y 2010-11 ITA Nos.74 to 77/Coch/2024 Thanseer

REHABILITATION PLANTATIONS LIMITED,KOLLAM vs. ITO, WARD 1 & TPS, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 409/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DR
Section 10(31)Section 143(3)Section 7A

section 10(31) of the Act and also set aside the matter to the file of the AO for fresh assessment keeping in view the ratio of the Full Bench decision in ITA No. 201 of 2013 dated 01.08.2013. Respectfully following the judgement of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires

REHABILITATION PLANTATIONS LIMITED,KOLLAM vs. ITO, WARD 1 & TPS, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 410/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DR
Section 10(31)Section 143(3)Section 7A

section 10(31) of the Act and also set aside the matter to the file of the AO for fresh assessment keeping in view the ratio of the Full Bench decision in ITA No. 201 of 2013 dated 01.08.2013. Respectfully following the judgement of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires