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.

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

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,707Delhi1,441Bangalore581Chennai471Ahmedabad413Kolkata319Hyderabad180Pune167Jaipur157Chandigarh152Raipur83Visakhapatnam70Indore69Surat65Amritsar58Cochin49Cuttack46Karnataka45Lucknow40Ranchi35Rajkot35Guwahati28Nagpur24SC19Jodhpur17Telangana12Agra10Allahabad8Calcutta5Dehradun5Panaji4Patna4Varanasi4Punjab & Haryana3Rajasthan3Orissa1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Jabalpur1Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)42Addition to Income33Section 80I27Disallowance22Depreciation22Section 153A15Section 14A14Deduction14Section 26312Section 132

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

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

ITA 413/COCH/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Feb 2019AY 2015-16

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

Section 170Section 32(1)(ii)Section 47

1 & 2 raised by the assessee is with regard to restriction of depreciation in the written down value of the assets taken over by the assessee. 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee company was incorporated on 31/05/2013 pursuant to conversion of partnership firm M/s. Muthoot Health Care I.T.A. No.413/Coch/2018 as per Part IX of the Companies

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

Showing 1–20 of 49 · Page 1 of 3

12
Section 25010
Section 44A9
ITA 33/COCH/2022[2012-13]Status: Disposed
ITAT Cochin
19 Dec 2022
AY 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

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

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

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

ASPINWALL & COMPANY LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

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

ITA 61/COCH/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2006-07

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

Section 14A

65:35 is to be made. The Ld. DR noted that this income is only a salvage value got from an exhausted stock – Just like the money got on sale of empty gunny bags by a cement dealer or of empty bottles by a bar hotel. There is no point in calling the trees a capital asset. According

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.ASPINWALL & CO. LTD, COCHIN

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

ITA 133/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2012-13

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

Section 14A

65:35 is to be made. The Ld. DR noted that this income is only a salvage value got from an exhausted stock – Just like the money got on sale of empty gunny bags by a cement dealer or of empty bottles by a bar hotel. There is no point in calling the trees a capital asset. According

M/S ASPINWALL & CO.,LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

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

ITA 128/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2012-13

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

Section 14A

65:35 is to be made. The Ld. DR noted that this income is only a salvage value got from an exhausted stock – Just like the money got on sale of empty gunny bags by a cement dealer or of empty bottles by a bar hotel. There is no point in calling the trees a capital asset. According

ASPINWALL & COMPANY LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

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

ITA 60/COCH/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2006-07

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

Section 14A

65:35 is to be made. The Ld. DR noted that this income is only a salvage value got from an exhausted stock – Just like the money got on sale of empty gunny bags by a cement dealer or of empty bottles by a bar hotel. There is no point in calling the trees a capital asset. According

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

ITA 271/COCH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sri. P.K.JayanFor Respondent: Sri.Sudhanshu Shekhar Jha
Section 143(3)

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

THARIF BUILDERS P. LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. THEACIT, KOZHIKKODE

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

ITA 487/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2014-15

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

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

section 142 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is issued to Shri Mohammed Kutty Haji @ Tharif Mall, Shri Hamza Puthukudy, Tharif Builders Pvt. Ltd. (name of person) to produce or cause to be produced books of account or other documents which will be useful for, relevant to, proceedings under the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, or under the Income

THARIF BUILDERS P. LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. THEACIT, KOZHIKKODE

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

ITA 489/COCH/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2016-17

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

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

section 142 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is issued to Shri Mohammed Kutty Haji @ Tharif Mall, Shri Hamza Puthukudy, Tharif Builders Pvt. Ltd. (name of person) to produce or cause to be produced books of account or other documents which will be useful for, relevant to, proceedings under the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, or under the Income

THARIF BUILDERS P. LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. THEACIT, KOZHIKKODE

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

ITA 488/COCH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2015-16

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

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

section 142 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is issued to Shri Mohammed Kutty Haji @ Tharif Mall, Shri Hamza Puthukudy, Tharif Builders Pvt. Ltd. (name of person) to produce or cause to be produced books of account or other documents which will be useful for, relevant to, proceedings under the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, or under the Income

THE ITO,COR.WD-1, KOCHI vs. BHAGHEERATHA ENGINEERING LIMITED, COCHIN

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 500/COCH/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

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

Section 32(1)

section 32(1) of the I.T. Act, for claiming depreciation, the asset should be owned by the assessee wholly or partly and should be used for the purposes of the business. The Assessing Officer found that in the previous year, these assets were under the custody of bankers/financiers/clients, therefore, these assets were not owned by the assessee. Hence, the Assessing

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 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

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 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

SMT.K.B.SONY,COCHIN vs. THE DCIT, COCHIN

In the result, i) The appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 320/COCH/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 May 2018AY 2009-10

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

Section 69

depreciation and unabsorbed investment allowance for limited period in case of certain domestic companies. Section 35 deals with expenditure on scientific research, section 35A deals with expenditure on acquisition of patent right or copy right. Section 35AB deals with expenditure on know-how. Section 35ABB deals with expenditure for obtaining licence to operate telecommunication services. Section 35AC deals with expenditure