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.

20 results for “depreciation”+ Section 40A(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai570Delhi441Bangalore156Chennai129Ahmedabad109Kolkata107Raipur93Jaipur54Amritsar48Hyderabad47Surat38Chandigarh25Indore24Pune22Cochin20Visakhapatnam15Rajkot11Guwahati10Lucknow9Cuttack8Jodhpur6Patna5Karnataka5Varanasi5SC3Agra3Dehradun3Ranchi3Nagpur2Calcutta2Allahabad1Jabalpur1Telangana1Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 40A(3)25Section 143(3)19Disallowance17Addition to Income9Depreciation8Section 1547Deduction7Section 326Section 40A(2)(b)6Section 40

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

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

ITA 301/COCH/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

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

Section 143(3)Section 253(1)Section 32Section 40A(3)

section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is a one-time benefit to encourage industrialization and the relevant provisions have to be construed reasonably and purposively. The additional depreciation is allowed in the year of purchase and if in the year of purchase, the assessee is eligible only for 50 per cent, depreciation, the balance

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

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

6
Reassessment6
Section 80G5
ITA 303/COCH/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

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

Section 143(3)Section 253(1)Section 32Section 40A(3)

section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is a one-time benefit to encourage industrialization and the relevant provisions have to be construed reasonably and purposively. The additional depreciation is allowed in the year of purchase and if in the year of purchase, the assessee is eligible only for 50 per cent, depreciation, the balance

SRI.VINU SELVARAJ M/S. RADHAS TEXTILES,KOLLAM vs. THE ITO, WD-4, KOLLAM

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

ITA 611/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K.

Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 40ASection 40A(2)Section 40A(3)Section 6D

section 40A(2) of the Act is reasonable and the same is upheld. The ground raised on this issue is dismissed.” 6.2 Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has raised this issue before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR reiterated the submissions made before the Income Tax authorities. The Ld. DR on the other hand strongly supported

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 626/COCH/2022[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Aug 2023AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Muhammad Shafeeq A., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)

depreciation, royalty etc. This expenditure is excessive in view of its proportion to the total expenditure debited. Therefore, 25% of Rs. 25,05,586/- ie. Rs. 6,26,396/-is disallowed u/s.40A(2)(a), treating it as excessive within the meaning of section mentioned. It is also to be noted that similar disallowance was made in the A.Y.2002-03

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 627/COCH/2022[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Aug 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Muhammad Shafeeq A., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)

depreciation, royalty etc. This expenditure is excessive in view of its proportion to the total expenditure debited. Therefore, 25% of Rs. 25,05,586/- ie. Rs. 6,26,396/-is disallowed u/s.40A(2)(a), treating it as excessive within the meaning of section mentioned. It is also to be noted that similar disallowance was made in the A.Y.2002-03

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 624/COCH/2022[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Aug 2023AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Muhammad Shafeeq A., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)

depreciation, royalty etc. This expenditure is excessive in view of its proportion to the total expenditure debited. Therefore, 25% of Rs. 25,05,586/- ie. Rs. 6,26,396/-is disallowed u/s.40A(2)(a), treating it as excessive within the meaning of section mentioned. It is also to be noted that similar disallowance was made in the A.Y.2002-03

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 625/COCH/2022[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Aug 2023AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Muhammad Shafeeq A., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)

depreciation, royalty etc. This expenditure is excessive in view of its proportion to the total expenditure debited. Therefore, 25% of Rs. 25,05,586/- ie. Rs. 6,26,396/-is disallowed u/s.40A(2)(a), treating it as excessive within the meaning of section mentioned. It is also to be noted that similar disallowance was made in the A.Y.2002-03

M/S SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,TRIVANDRUM vs. DCIT ,CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 937/COCH/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Muhammad Shafeeq A., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)

depreciation, royalty etc. This expenditure is excessive in view of its proportion to the total expenditure debited. Therefore, 25% of Rs. 25,05,586/- ie. Rs. 6,26,396/-is disallowed u/s.40A(2)(a), treating it as excessive within the meaning of section mentioned. It is also to be noted that similar disallowance was made in the A.Y.2002-03

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 623/COCH/2022[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Aug 2023AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Muhammad Shafeeq A., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)

depreciation, royalty etc. This expenditure is excessive in view of its proportion to the total expenditure debited. Therefore, 25% of Rs. 25,05,586/- ie. Rs. 6,26,396/-is disallowed u/s.40A(2)(a), treating it as excessive within the meaning of section mentioned. It is also to be noted that similar disallowance was made in the A.Y.2002-03

JULIUS RUBEN,KOCHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI

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

ITA 219/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri.A.Gopalakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 40A(3)

depreciation under section 32 and capital expenditure under section 35AD on cash payment 7 ITA No.219/Coch/2025. Sri.Julius Ruben. Under the existing provisions of the Act, revenue expenditure incurred in cash exceeding certain monetary threshold is not allowable as per sub-section (3) of section 40A of the Act except in specified circumstances as referred to in Rule

M/S.KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEV CORPN LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 142/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

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

Section 135Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

2 to section 37(1) of the Act, any expenditure incurred by the assessee on the activities relating to CSR referred to in section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013 shall not be deemed to be an expenditure incurred by the assessee for the purpose of business or profession. 2.2 The CIT(A) relied on the judgment of the Apex

M/S.KALYAN JEWELLERS INDIA LTD,THRISSUR vs. THE ACIT, THRISSUR

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

ITA 744/COCH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Shaji Sreejith, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(1)Section 263Section 5(1)Section 80GSection 80G(4)

section." 3.6 In view of the above, Ld. Principal CIT set aside the assessment and directed the Assessing Officer to do fresh assessment after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. In this case, the PCIT exercised jurisdiction

VICT PLY INDUSTRIES,KANNUR vs. ITO, WARD 4, KNNUR

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

ITA 399/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2015-16 Victply Industries .......... Appellant Ap Vii/585B, Industrial Development Park Andoor, Parassinikkadavu, Kannur, Kerala [Pan: Aagfv 5189 D] Vs. Ito, Ward-4, Kannur .......... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

depreciation loss of Rs. 1,25,649/-. Against the said return of 2 Victply Industries income, the assessment was completed by the ITO, Ward-4, Kannur (for short, 'AO') vide order dated 17/11/2017 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') at a total income of Rs. 14,32,070/-. While doing

P. SURENDRAN,TRIVANDRUM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 978/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm P. Surendran Sukanya Bhavan Asst. Cit-1(2) Vadayakkadu, Kunnukuzhy, P.O., Thiruvananthapuram Vs. Thiruvananthapuram-695 035

For Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 40A(3)Section 40a

section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act applies only to those payments in respect of any expenditure debited to the Profit and Loss account and claimed as a deduction from income. 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in affirming the disallowance of car depreciation and interest on car loan made by the Assessing Officer on account

PANICHIKANDY MOHANDASAN,KASARGOD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,KANNUR RANGE, KANNUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 605/COCH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 40A(3)

2 Panichikandy Mohandasan assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer (AO), after making several disallowances, at total income of Rs. 3,73,50,420/-. 3. The disallowances, inter alia, with which we are concerned include the disallowance of Rs. 16,40,710/- being the payment made to Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) invoking provisions of section 40A

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)

section 40A(3) of the Act. The assessee challenged the said disallowances before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) has not accepted the case of the assessee and dismissed the appeal. Therefore, the assessee filed the present appeal before this Tribunal on the following grounds: ITA Nos.74 to 77/Coch/2024 Thanseer Kaja, Kerala Page

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)

section 40A(3) of the Act. The assessee challenged the said disallowances before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) has not accepted the case of the assessee and dismissed the appeal. Therefore, the assessee filed the present appeal before this Tribunal on the following grounds: ITA Nos.74 to 77/Coch/2024 Thanseer Kaja, Kerala Page

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)

section 40A(3) of the Act. The assessee challenged the said disallowances before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) has not accepted the case of the assessee and dismissed the appeal. Therefore, the assessee filed the present appeal before this Tribunal on the following grounds: ITA Nos.74 to 77/Coch/2024 Thanseer Kaja, Kerala Page

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)

section 40A(3) of the Act. The assessee challenged the said disallowances before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) has not accepted the case of the assessee and dismissed the appeal. Therefore, the assessee filed the present appeal before this Tribunal on the following grounds: ITA Nos.74 to 77/Coch/2024 Thanseer Kaja, Kerala Page

KERALA AGRO MACHINERY CORPORATION LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , RANGE -1 , KOCHI, KOCHI

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

ITA 587/COCH/2024[A.Y 2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2011-12 Kerala Agro Machinery Corporation Limited Athani Aluva Adit, Range-1 Vs. Ernakulam Kochi Kerala 683 585 Pan No : Aaack9968Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Mrs. Remya S. Menon, A.R. Respondent By : Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.04.2025 O R D E R Per Keshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 24.4.2024 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1064318699(1) For The Ay 2011-12 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Mrs. Remya S. Menon, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 24Section 250Section 40a

section 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Act and Rs.1,02,500/- has been disallowed. ii. Expenditure on which TDS was not deducted and remitted before the date of filing of return has been disallowed u/s 40a(ia) of the Act. iii. Loss on revaluation of tools amounting to Rs.4,48,719/- has been added back to the returned income