ERNAKULAM REGIONAL COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNIONS LTD.,KOCHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2012-13

depreciation should not be disallowed considering the fact that as per section 32(1) (iia), since the additional depreciation is a one-time

DIADORA SHOES PVT LTD,CALICUT vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(1), CALICUT

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Anil Kumar Dugar, Jm

depreciation of Rs.59,000/- in respect of the assets acquired in preceding assessment year i.e. A.Y. 2013- 2014 under section 32(1

THE ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. M/S.NITTA GELATINE INDIA LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

depreciation of 10% relating to assets acquired and put to use in the immediate previous AY 2009-10. The Assessing Officer has rightly disallowed the same, since the plant and machinery were added during the previous year relevant to the AY 2008-09. As per clause (ii a) of sub-section (1) of section 32

THE ACIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.NITTA GELATINE INDIA LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

depreciation of 10% relating to assets acquired and put to use in the immediate previous AY 2009-10. The Assessing Officer has rightly disallowed the same, since the plant and machinery were added during the previous year relevant to the AY 2008-09. As per clause (ii a) of sub-section (1) of section 32

GATEWAY DISTRIPARKS(KERALA) LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

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

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No.216/Coch/2018 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Gateway Distriparks (Kerala) Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd., Door No. 26/1804, Income-Tax, Circle-1(2), Kochi Chakiat House, Subramaniam Road, Willington Island, Kochi-682 003. [Pan:Aaccg 6616P] (Assessee-Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Assessee By Shri P.M. Veeramani, Ca Revenue By Smt. A.S. Bindhu, Dr Date Of Hearing 14/08/2018 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2018

1)(ii) of the Act. As per the provision of Section 32(l)(ii) of the Act, the intangible assets such as knowhow, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licenses, franchises or any other business or commercial right of similar nature are eligible for depreciation

MUTHOOT HEALTHCARE P. LTD,KOZHENCHERRY vs. THE ACIT, , THIRUVALLA

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

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

1 )(ii) of the Act that in cases falling under section 47(xiii) of the Act, the total deduction under section 32 of the Act in FY 2013-14 for both transferor and transferee put together shall not exceed the depreciation

CHERIAN VARKEY CONSTRUCTION CO.(P) LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

32(1)(iia) of the I.T.Act. The relevant finding of the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal reads as follows:- “8.2 However, we find substantial force in the alternative claim raised by the assessee for allowability of additional depreciation on mixer mounted on the vehicle as eligible under s.32(1)(iia) of the Act. Section

DIADORA SHOES PVT LTD,CALICUT vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(1), CALICUT

In the result, the assessee’sappeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasdiadora Shoes Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Cit, Circle - 2 Vkc Tower, Kolathra P.O Calicut 673001 Vs. Calicut 673655 [Pan:Aabcd9692D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 32(1)(ii) by Finance Act, 2015, w.e.f. 01.04.2016, is retrospective in nature? While the assessee before us relies on the decisions in the following cases, the Revenue relies on the decision in Pr. CIT vs. Era Infrastructure(India) Ltd. [2022] 141 taxmann.com 289 (Del) (copy on record), rendered relying on the decision in Sedco Forex International Drill

THE ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD, KOCHI

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.

depreciation allowed under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. The assessee could avail 50% of the allowed depreciation on account

THE ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD, KOCHI

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.

depreciation allowed under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. The assessee could avail 50% of the allowed depreciation on account

THE ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD, KOCHI

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.

depreciation allowed under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. The assessee could avail 50% of the allowed depreciation on account

THE ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD, KOCHI

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.

depreciation allowed under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. The assessee could avail 50% of the allowed depreciation on account

THE ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD, KOCHI

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.

depreciation allowed under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. The assessee could avail 50% of the allowed depreciation on account

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

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

32(1)(iia) of the Act on the ground that the plant and machinery was acquired and put to use during the previous year relevant to AY 2012- 13. Since the assets were put to use for less than 180 days, additional depreciation was allowed only at 10% as per second proviso to section

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2011-2012

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

section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T.Act, as it was considered retrospective effect by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Export Company (supra). Accordingly, this issue is remitted to the file of A.O. for fresh consideration. 14. As regards ground No.6 and its sub-grounds, the grievance of the assessee is that the Transfer Pricing Officer

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2011-2012

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

section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T.Act, as it was considered retrospective effect by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Export Company (supra). Accordingly, this issue is remitted to the file of A.O. for fresh consideration. 14. As regards ground No.6 and its sub-grounds, the grievance of the assessee is that the Transfer Pricing Officer

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR vs. M/S.KERALA COMMUNICATORS CABLE LTD, THRISSUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed and

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

section 32 including building when the rate of depreciation on building is only 10% and not 100%. The equipments like STB can be considered, if at all admissible for depreciation, to be @ 15% under the "Plant & Machinery" and not @ 100%. In this view of the matter, if at all depreciation can be treated as admissible, it shall not exceed

THE ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.KUNNEL ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS P. LTD, KOCHI

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

depreciation means decrease in the value of an asset through wear and tear, deterioration or obsolescence. The Ld. DR opined that while these implications easily apply to buildings or other structures built upon land, the land itself as an asset has no finite life. The Ld. DR referred to Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Section 32 (1

TAG CHEMICALS (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1) , TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Tag Chemicals (India) Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle - 1(1) Kinfra Bio-Technology & Trivandrum Industrial Zone Vs. Thrikkakara North Part Hmt Colony, Ernakulam 683503 [Pan: Aacct8064G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation as per section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. We observe that the said amount of Rs.150 crores paid