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.

29 results for “depreciation”+ Section 65(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,689Delhi1,456Bangalore595Chennai479Kolkata310Ahmedabad233Hyderabad116Jaipur104Chandigarh97Pune92Raipur76Indore55Amritsar48Karnataka45Lucknow38Ranchi35Visakhapatnam31Cochin29Rajkot29Surat19SC19Jodhpur16Guwahati13Nagpur13Telangana12Cuttack6Allahabad5Calcutta5Varanasi4Patna3Punjab & Haryana3Rajasthan3Agra2Panaji2Orissa1Kerala1Jabalpur1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)31Addition to Income20Depreciation16Disallowance14Section 80I12Section 25010Section 44A9Section 1489Section 143(2)8Deduction

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THRRISSUR vs. MANJILAS AGRO FOODS PVT. LTD., THRISSUR

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 34/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri C V Varghese, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

65,500. Subsequently, a notice u/s. 148 was served on the assessee. The assessee in response to notice submitted to consider the revised return to be the return filed in response to notice u/s. 148. During the year under consideration, the assessee has claimed depreciation at 30% on the temp van used for the purpose of business. The AO held

MANJILAS AGRO FOODS PVT. LTD,THRISSUR vs. THACIT,CIRCLE-1(1 ), THRISSUR

Showing 1–20 of 29 · Page 1 of 2

8
Business Income7
Section 14A6

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 32/COCH/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri C V Varghese, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

65,500. Subsequently, a notice u/s. 148 was served on the assessee. The assessee in response to notice submitted to consider the revised return to be the return filed in response to notice u/s. 148. During the year under consideration, the assessee has claimed depreciation at 30% on the temp van used for the purpose of business. The AO held

MANJILAS AGRO FOOD PVT.LTD.,THRISSUR vs. THE ITO,WARD-1(2),, THRISSUR

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 33/COCH/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri C V Varghese, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

65,500. Subsequently, a notice u/s. 148 was served on the assessee. The assessee in response to notice submitted to consider the revised return to be the return filed in response to notice u/s. 148. During the year under consideration, the assessee has claimed depreciation at 30% on the temp van used for the purpose of business. The AO held

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

ITA 25/COCH/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Jun 2022AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Smt.Parvathy Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamunna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 32(1)(iia)

depreciation is claimed 1. Transit Mixers 65,62,774 8,20,346 6,56,277 2. Truck 85,86,528 10,73,316 8,58,653 Total 1,51,49,302 18,93,662 15,14,930 3. Other plant and 9,44,574 machineries Total 24,59,504 5.1 The sample copies of the invoices for the Transit Mixers

NIZAR,THODUPUZHA vs. ITO, WARD 1 & TPS,, THODUPUZHA/

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

ITA 825/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 May 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 44A

65,248. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: 2 ITA No.825/Coch/2024. Sri.Nizar. The assessment was completed u/s.143(3) of the Act vide order dated 16.03.2021. In the said assessment order, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter “the AO”) had estimated income from agency business of Rs.7,62,54,049 at 8% and added to the total income

THEDCIT, COCHIN vs. M.S COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

ITA 304/COCH/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: 22.08.2024
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

65 ITR 381 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the expenditure is wholly incurred for the purpose of business of the assessee, there was no reason to disallow any portion of Cochin International Airport Ltd. the interest expenditure on imaginary reasons. The judgment dated 08.08.2011 of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in K. Raheja Corporation

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

ITA 166/COCH/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: 22.08.2024
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

65 ITR 381 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the expenditure is wholly incurred for the purpose of business of the assessee, there was no reason to disallow any portion of Cochin International Airport Ltd. the interest expenditure on imaginary reasons. The judgment dated 08.08.2011 of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in K. Raheja Corporation

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

ITA 167/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: 22.08.2024
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

65 ITR 381 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the expenditure is wholly incurred for the purpose of business of the assessee, there was no reason to disallow any portion of Cochin International Airport Ltd. the interest expenditure on imaginary reasons. The judgment dated 08.08.2011 of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in K. Raheja Corporation

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M.S COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

ITA 193/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: 22.08.2024
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

65 ITR 381 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the expenditure is wholly incurred for the purpose of business of the assessee, there was no reason to disallow any portion of Cochin International Airport Ltd. the interest expenditure on imaginary reasons. The judgment dated 08.08.2011 of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in K. Raheja Corporation

M/S SKYLINE E TECH,KOCHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(2), KOCHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 268/COCH/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Jan 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Radhesh Bhatt, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 32Section 32(1)Section 47

section 32(1) of the Act. The ld. AO is directed to verify the same and grant depreciation in accordance with law. Accordingly ground no. 4 of assessee is allowed with above direction. 12. Thus, ITA No.268/Coch/2023 for AY 2005-06 is partly allowed. 13. ITA No.269/Coch/2023 is filed by assessee against the appellate order passed

M/S SKYLINE E TECH,KOCHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(2), KOCHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 269/COCH/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Jan 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Radhesh Bhatt, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 32Section 32(1)Section 47

section 32(1) of the Act. The ld. AO is directed to verify the same and grant depreciation in accordance with law. Accordingly ground no. 4 of assessee is allowed with above direction. 12. Thus, ITA No.268/Coch/2023 for AY 2005-06 is partly allowed. 13. ITA No.269/Coch/2023 is filed by assessee against the appellate order passed

CARMEL CONVENT ,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, TRIVANDRAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay petition is dismissed

ITA 689/COCH/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Mar 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. Seethalakshmi

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)

section, are met. Exemptions provisions, as indeed tax statutes, are to be strictly construed: CC v. Dilip Kumar & Co. [2018] 6 GSTR-OL 46 (SC); Banarsi Debi v. ITO [1964] 53 ITR 100 (SC); Ramnath & Co. v. CIT [2020] 425 ITR 337 (SC), affirming [2016] 388 ITR 307 (Ker); Ajmera Housing Corporation

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

65,41,606/- The above mentioned mistakes are apparent from the record and may please be rectified u/s. 154. Till such time as the above mistakes are rectified and the demand revised, we may not be treated as an assessee in default in respect of the tax presently demanded for A. Y.2008-09.” 4. Vide order dated 24/03/2016 passed under section

SRI.K.P. JOHNY,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), THRISSUR

In the result, both the assessee’s and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 206/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dask.P. Johny Asst. Cit, Manappuram House Circle – 2(1) Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Thrissur 680307 Sakthan Thampuran Nagar [Pan:Acgpj4958G] Thrissur 680001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit, K.P. Johny Circle – 2(1) Manappuram House Aayakar Bhavan Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Vs. Sakthan Thampuran Nagar Thrissur 680307 Thrissur 680001 [Pan: Acgpj4958G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Sreedharan, Sr. Advocate (with Smt. Divya Ravindran, Adv. with him)For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 131(1)Section 133ASection 147Section 148(1)Section 69

depreciable asset, it’s WDV. When it is therefore stated therein that VHPL would thus become the absolute owner of it’s assets, the same is to be understood as stated in a loose manner; the acquisition of the entire share-holding in Manko, a private company, giving it complete control over and a de facto ownership it’s business

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), THRISSUR vs. SRI.K.P. JOHNY, THRISSUR

In the result, both the assessee’s and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 254/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dask.P. Johny Asst. Cit, Manappuram House Circle – 2(1) Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Thrissur 680307 Sakthan Thampuran Nagar [Pan:Acgpj4958G] Thrissur 680001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit, K.P. Johny Circle – 2(1) Manappuram House Aayakar Bhavan Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Vs. Sakthan Thampuran Nagar Thrissur 680307 Thrissur 680001 [Pan: Acgpj4958G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Sreedharan, Sr. Advocate (with Smt. Divya Ravindran, Adv. with him)For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 131(1)Section 133ASection 147Section 148(1)Section 69

depreciable asset, it’s WDV. When it is therefore stated therein that VHPL would thus become the absolute owner of it’s assets, the same is to be understood as stated in a loose manner; the acquisition of the entire share-holding in Manko, a private company, giving it complete control over and a de facto ownership it’s business

INDO GERMAN CARBONS LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(2), KOCHI

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

ITA 419/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Smt. Remya Menon, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Girly Albert, Snr DR
Section 250

depreciation whereas confirmed the disallowance of provision of bad and doubtful debts and advances. 3. As against the said order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal and raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the CIT(A). National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) issued under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, discussing the ground relating

COMBINED FOODS (P) LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CORPORATE WARD-1(1), KOCHI

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

ITA 862/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri.P.M.Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 41(1)Section 43(1)

65,210. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer (“the AO”) vide order dated 20.12.2016 passed u/s.143(3) of the Act at a total income of Rs.30,70,400. While doing so, the AO made addition of Rs.9,73,497 2 ITA No.862/Coch/2023. Combined Foods (P) Limited. u/s.41(1) of the Income

INFOPARKS KERALA,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 77/COCH/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

section 2(15). However, the Court does not rule out any future claim made and being independently assessed, if GS1 is able to satisfy that what it provides to its customers is charged on cost-basis with at the most, a nominal mark-up. The foregoing neatly sums up the adjudication qua entities as the assessee, which is accordingly

INFOPARKS KERALA,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE JT DIRECTOR OF IT (OSD) EXEM), COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 75/COCH/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

section 2(15). However, the Court does not rule out any future claim made and being independently assessed, if GS1 is able to satisfy that what it provides to its customers is charged on cost-basis with at the most, a nominal mark-up. The foregoing neatly sums up the adjudication qua entities as the assessee, which is accordingly

INFOPARKS KERALA,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE JT DIRECTOR OF IT (OSD) EXEM), COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 76/COCH/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

section 2(15). However, the Court does not rule out any future claim made and being independently assessed, if GS1 is able to satisfy that what it provides to its customers is charged on cost-basis with at the most, a nominal mark-up. The foregoing neatly sums up the adjudication qua entities as the assessee, which is accordingly