Search: depreciation | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

12 results for “depreciation”+ Section 32(1)(iia)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai231 Delhi173 Chennai113 Kolkata105 Ahmedabad69 Bangalore51 Chandigarh43 Raipur33 Hyderabad18 Pune16 Cochin12 Jodhpur9 Rajkot8 Guwahati8 Jaipur7 Cuttack6 Calcutta5 Indore4 Karnataka3 Kerala3 Nagpur3 SC3 Surat3 Lucknow2 Amritsar2 Telangana2 Visakhapatnam1 Panaji1 Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 32(1)(iia)38 Section 32(1)(ii)12 Section 143(3)10 Depreciation10 Addition to Income9 Section 1478 Disallowance8 Deduction8 Section 405 Section 14A

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

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 92/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR

Section 250Section 32(1)(iia)

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)(iia

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

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

ITA 655/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: Disposed

5

ITAT Cochin

20 Jan 2023

AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. ARFor Respondent: S/Shri Rajasekharan & K. Gopi, CAs

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40

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

ITA 656/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. ARFor Respondent: S/Shri Rajasekharan & K. Gopi, CAs

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40

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

ITA 657/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. ARFor Respondent: S/Shri Rajasekharan & K. Gopi, CAs

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40

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

ITA 658/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. ARFor Respondent: S/Shri Rajasekharan & K. Gopi, CAs

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40

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

ITA 659/COCH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. ARFor Respondent: S/Shri Rajasekharan & K. Gopi, CAs

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40

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

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

In the result, the assessee’sappeal is allowed

ITA 213/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

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)

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Venugopal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

32(1)(ii) by Finance Act, 2015, w.e.f. 01.04.2016, reading as under: Provided also that where an asset referred to in clause (iia) or the first proviso to clause (iia), as the case may be, is acquired by the assessee during the previous year and is put to use for the purposes of business for a period of less than

PARISONS FOODS PRIVATE LTD,CALICUT vs. DCIT , CIRCLE 1(1), KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 229/COCH/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Jun 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.(Through Virtual Hearing) Parisons Foods Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle - 1(1) 6/1183, Kunhipari Buildins Kozhikode Calicut 673032 Vs. Pan – Aaccp2898J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Surendranath Rao, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ilaiyaraja, K.S., Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.06.2024 O R D E R Per: Soundararajan K., J.M. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Challenges The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Cit(A)) Dated 01.02.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2005-06. 2. The Assessee Is In The Business Of Refining & Sale Of Crude Edible Oil & Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.10.2005 & The Assessment Was Completed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act By Accepting The Returns. Subsequently The Cit Invoked His Suo Moto Revision Powers Under Section 263 Of The Act To Disallow The Additional Depreciation Claimed U/S 32(1)(Iia) Of The Act & Directed The Ao To Complete The Assessment De Novo By Considering The Claim Of Additional Depreciation Of 15%. Thereafter The Ld. Ao

For Appellant: Shri Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ilaiyaraja, K.S., Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 32(1)(iia)

Section 263 of the Act to disallow the additional depreciation claimed u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act and directed

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

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

ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. APPOLO TYRES LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals as well as the Assessee’s COs, are allowed

ITA 140/COCH/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjit K. Das, CIT-DR and Smt

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year); Page 3 ITANos. 139 & 140/Coch/ 2020 (AYs 2009-10 & 2011-12) CO Nos. 02 & 03/Coch/2020 Asst. CIT vs. Apollo Tyres Ltd. Provided that where an assessment under

ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. APPOLO TYRES LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals as well as the Assessee’s COs, are allowed

ITA 139/COCH/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjit K. Das, CIT-DR and Smt

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year); Page 3 ITANos. 139 & 140/Coch/ 2020 (AYs 2009-10 & 2011-12) CO Nos. 02 & 03/Coch/2020 Asst. CIT vs. Apollo Tyres Ltd. Provided that where an assessment under

M/S.COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD,KOCHI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 654/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Mar 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dascochin Shipyard Ltd. Dy. Cit, Corporate Circle 1(1) Administrative Building C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road Shipyard Premises Kochi 682018 Vs. Perumanoor P.O. Kochi 682015 [Pan:Aaacc6905B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Radhesh L. Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32(1)(iia)

section 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 30.03.2022 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kochi (Pr.CIT), setting aside the assessee’s assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 29.12.2019 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. The first of the two aspects on which assessment stands set aside for being examined, is in respect