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 234Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi729Mumbai602Bangalore385Ahmedabad141Kolkata73Chennai66Jaipur44Pune38Chandigarh30Hyderabad26Indore23Ranchi18Lucknow15Visakhapatnam11Surat11Dehradun9Amritsar9Agra7Cochin7Nagpur6Karnataka6SC4Cuttack4Rajkot3Allahabad2Patna2Jodhpur2Telangana2Punjab & Haryana1Calcutta1Panaji1Raipur1

Key Topics

Section 14A14Section 1545Section 234B5Section 92C(3)4Section 144C(5)4Section 404Disallowance4Section 92C3Natural Justice3Section 36(1)(viii)

THE ACIT CIR-1(1), THRISSUR vs. SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD, THRISSUR

In the result, both the appeal filed by the assessee as well as the appeal filed

ITA 219/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

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

Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)

234B provides that short falls has to be taxed under Section 43(3). The matter is covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala . (252 ITR 1) and It was held that interest contemplated under Sections 234A, 2348 and 234C is mandatory in nature. In view

SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD,THRISSUR vs. THE ACIT CIR-1(1), THRISSUR

In the result, both the appeal filed by the assessee as well as the appeal filed

ITA 215/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin
2
Transfer Pricing2
Rectification u/s 1542
21 Mar 2019
AY 2012-13

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

Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)

234B provides that short falls has to be taxed under Section 43(3). The matter is covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala . (252 ITR 1) and It was held that interest contemplated under Sections 234A, 2348 and 234C is mandatory in nature. In view

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)

234B of the Act. 8.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned DC IT and DRP have erred confirming the consequential levy of interest under section 2348 of the Act at Rs.5,60,56,5l0. Ground No.9 - Consequential levy of interest under section 2340 and 244A of the Act. 9.1 On the facts and circumstances

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)

234B of the Act. 8.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned DC IT and DRP have erred confirming the consequential levy of interest under section 2348 of the Act at Rs.5,60,56,5l0. Ground No.9 - Consequential levy of interest under section 2340 and 244A of the Act. 9.1 On the facts and circumstances

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)

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 at domestic borrowing rate of the Appellant instead of LIBOR/EURIBOR. Ground No 7-Erroneous TP adjustment on advances written

UST GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHI vs. DCIT,CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), KOCHI

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

ITA 1071/COCH/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Rajakannam, Advocate
Section 143Section 92C

depreciation of Right to use ('RTU') of assets as operating expenses; 3 Disregarded the TP study and non-contemporaneous data used by the Ld. TPO 3.1 The Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO/Ld. Panel have erred in facts and in law, in making an addition to the total returned income of the Appellant, on account of TP matters, by re-determining

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1) & TPS, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 284/COCH/2024[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2025AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoshri Sandeep Singh Karhailthe South Indian Bank Limited, Head Office, Mission Quarters, Tb Road, Thrissur Kerala - 680001 ............... Appellant Pan : Aabct0022F V/S Dcit, Circle – 1(1) & Tps ……………… Respondent Thrissur, Kerala

For Appellant: Shri Naresh C, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234BSection 234DSection 250

234B. e) The date of the last payment of tax has been wrongly mentioned as 21- 12-2014 instead of 21-2-2014. Vide demand notice dated 26-3-2015, the demand raised amounts to Rs.5,05,25,210/- However, as per our workings, the refund due amounts to Rs.31,65,41,606/- The above mentioned mistakes are apparent from