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.

57 results for “depreciation”+ Section 9(1)(vii)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,211Delhi1,155Bangalore480Chennai384Ahmedabad284Kolkata207Chandigarh116Jaipur115Hyderabad110Pune80Indore63Karnataka60Cochin57Surat47Guwahati44Raipur44Visakhapatnam42Cuttack42Amritsar41Rajkot35Ranchi33Lucknow29SC21Nagpur13Jodhpur12Telangana11Agra9Kerala8Dehradun6Calcutta4Patna4Panaji2Allahabad1Punjab & Haryana1Rajasthan1Jabalpur1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)33Addition to Income33Disallowance32Deduction21Depreciation20Section 36(1)(viia)19Section 153A15Section 36(1)15Section 15414Section 10A

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

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

ITA 475/COCH/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 May 2018AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sri.Raghunathan S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Santham Bose, CIT-DR
Section 144C(5)Section 190Section 194JSection 234BSection 40Section 92C(3)

vii) of the I.T.Act. Further, there was a payment of rent for which the provisions of section 194-I is applicable. Hence it cannot be considered as reimbursement of expenditure. Thus, the payments so made are covered by the provisions of section 194J/194I, as may be applicable in the present case. 12. Coming to the alternative contention of the learned

Showing 1–20 of 57 · Page 1 of 3

13
Section 80I12
Section 14812

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

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

ITA 134/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 May 2018AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sri.Raghunathan S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Santham Bose, CIT-DR
Section 144C(5)Section 190Section 194JSection 234BSection 40Section 92C(3)

vii) of the I.T.Act. Further, there was a payment of rent for which the provisions of section 194-I is applicable. Hence it cannot be considered as reimbursement of expenditure. Thus, the payments so made are covered by the provisions of section 194J/194I, as may be applicable in the present case. 12. Coming to the alternative contention of the learned

SILLS KARINGATTIL JOSE,NEDUMKANDOM vs. ITO WARD 2, THODUPUZHA

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 132/COCH/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhsils Karingattil Jose Income Tax Officer Np 3/406, Karingattil Ward - 2, House, Munnar Road Thodupuzha Vs. Nedumkandom P.O. [Pan: Afopj8789C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P. M. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(V)Section 250Section 50CSection 53ASection 56(2)(vii)

depreciated “FMV” of the company shares already held in light of the foregoing case law, the impugned addition be deleted. 9. The Revenue on the other hand has strongly supported the impugned addition made in the assessee’s hands u/s 56(2)(vii)(c)(ii) of the Act. 10. It is in this factual backdrop that we first

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), TIRUR, TIRUR vs. M/S. SOUTH MALABAR GRAMINA BANK H.O., MALAPPURAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 366/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

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

Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

9. On appeal, the CIT(A) observed that provisions of section 36(1)(vii) are distinct and independent of the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) and a deduction for bad debt is allowable only if the debt is written off in the books. However, there is an exemption provided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

M/S.SOUTH MALABAR GRAMINA BANK,MALAPPURAM vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), TIRUR, THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), TIRUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 364/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

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

Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

9. On appeal, the CIT(A) observed that provisions of section 36(1)(vii) are distinct and independent of the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) and a deduction for bad debt is allowable only if the debt is written off in the books. However, there is an exemption provided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

M/S.SOUTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK ( PRESENTLY- KERALA GRAMIN BANK),MALAPPURAM vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE_2(2), TIRUR, TIRUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 363/COCH/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

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

Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

9. On appeal, the CIT(A) observed that provisions of section 36(1)(vii) are distinct and independent of the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) and a deduction for bad debt is allowable only if the debt is written off in the books. However, there is an exemption provided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

ITA 283/COCH/2024[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Naresh S., CAFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR
Section 153Section 154Section 220(2)Section 234DSection 244ASection 244aSection 250

9. Suffice to say, both the learned representatives during the course of hearing duly agree that the hon'ble jurisdictional high court has itself settled the issue in department’s favour so far as allowability of the impugned expenditure falling under capital than revenue expenditure is concerned. This first and foremost substantive ground stands rejected. 10. Learned counsel’s next

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1)& TPS, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

ITA 286/COCH/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Naresh S., CAFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR
Section 153Section 154Section 220(2)Section 234DSection 244ASection 244aSection 250

9. Suffice to say, both the learned representatives during the course of hearing duly agree that the hon'ble jurisdictional high court has itself settled the issue in department’s favour so far as allowability of the impugned expenditure falling under capital than revenue expenditure is concerned. This first and foremost substantive ground stands rejected. 10. Learned counsel’s next

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

ITA 288/COCH/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Naresh S., CAFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR
Section 153Section 154Section 220(2)Section 234DSection 244ASection 244aSection 250

9. Suffice to say, both the learned representatives during the course of hearing duly agree that the hon'ble jurisdictional high court has itself settled the issue in department’s favour so far as allowability of the impugned expenditure falling under capital than revenue expenditure is concerned. This first and foremost substantive ground stands rejected. 10. Learned counsel’s next

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. JCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

ITA 233/COCH/2024[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Naresh S., CAFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR
Section 153Section 154Section 220(2)Section 234DSection 244ASection 244aSection 250

9. Suffice to say, both the learned representatives during the course of hearing duly agree that the hon'ble jurisdictional high court has itself settled the issue in department’s favour so far as allowability of the impugned expenditure falling under capital than revenue expenditure is concerned. This first and foremost substantive ground stands rejected. 10. Learned counsel’s next

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

ITA 232/COCH/2024[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Naresh S., CAFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR
Section 153Section 154Section 220(2)Section 234DSection 244ASection 244aSection 250

9. Suffice to say, both the learned representatives during the course of hearing duly agree that the hon'ble jurisdictional high court has itself settled the issue in department’s favour so far as allowability of the impugned expenditure falling under capital than revenue expenditure is concerned. This first and foremost substantive ground stands rejected. 10. Learned counsel’s next

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED ,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

ITA 285/COCH/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Naresh S., CAFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR
Section 153Section 154Section 220(2)Section 234DSection 244ASection 244aSection 250

9. Suffice to say, both the learned representatives during the course of hearing duly agree that the hon'ble jurisdictional high court has itself settled the issue in department’s favour so far as allowability of the impugned expenditure falling under capital than revenue expenditure is concerned. This first and foremost substantive ground stands rejected. 10. Learned counsel’s next

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

9(1)(vii)of Income Tax Act and liable for TDS. 5.2 The Ld AO erred in not appreciating that the assessee company has made payment of Rs 1,07,08,950/- for clinical trials majorly to Apollo Tyres Middle East FZE on cost to cost basis; hence TDS not deducted. 5.3 The Ld. AO has erred in appreciating that

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. PCIT, , THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 628/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2025AY 2018-19

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 Pcit, Aayakar Bhavan, North Block, ……………… Respondent New Annex Building Mananchira, Kozhikode Kerala.

For Appellant: Shri Naresh C, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)(v)

depreciation on investments, the submission made and attached documents filed were seen. After consideration of the matter, it is seen that setting aside of the assessment on those issues is not called for.” 7. On 14/02/2024, the learned PCIT issued notice under section 154 of the Act on the basis that vide revision order passed under section

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)

Vii-495ABC, Circle 1(1) Near Uzhaloor Temple Thrissur. South Thoravu, Pudukad Thrissur – 680 301. (Cross Objector) (Respondent) Revenue by : Sri.Sudhanshu Shekhar Jha Assessee by : Sri. P.K.Jayan Date of Pronouncement : 30.04.2019 Date of Hearing : 03.04.2019 O R D E R Per Bench This appeal at the instance of the Revenue and cross objection preferred by the assessee are directed against

M/S INDITRADE CAPITAL LTD (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ,KOCHI vs. THE ITO, CORPORATE WARD1(1),, KOCHI

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

ITA 242/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Sri.Aneesh Vishwanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the appellant made a claim for allowance of depreciation at the rate of 25% of the sum paid, placing reliance on the following decisions :- (i) Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. v. DDCIT, Tax case (Appeals) No.1195 by Hon’ble Madras High Court. (ii) Ind Global Corporate Fiannce (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2013) 33 taxmann.com

M/S INDITRADE CAPITAL LTD (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ,KOCHI vs. THE ITO, CORPORATE WARD1(1),, KOCHI

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

ITA 241/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Sri.Aneesh Vishwanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the appellant made a claim for allowance of depreciation at the rate of 25% of the sum paid, placing reliance on the following decisions :- (i) Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. v. DDCIT, Tax case (Appeals) No.1195 by Hon’ble Madras High Court. (ii) Ind Global Corporate Fiannce (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2013) 33 taxmann.com

M/S INDITRADE CAPITAL LTD (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS "JRG SECURITIES LTD"),KOCHI vs. THE ITO, CORPORATE WARD1(1),, KOCHI

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

ITA 243/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Sri.Aneesh Vishwanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the appellant made a claim for allowance of depreciation at the rate of 25% of the sum paid, placing reliance on the following decisions :- (i) Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. v. DDCIT, Tax case (Appeals) No.1195 by Hon’ble Madras High Court. (ii) Ind Global Corporate Fiannce (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2013) 33 taxmann.com

M/S INDITRADE CAPITAL LTD (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ,KOCHI vs. THE ITO, CORPORATE WARD1(1),, KOCHI

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

ITA 240/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Sri.Aneesh Vishwanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the appellant made a claim for allowance of depreciation at the rate of 25% of the sum paid, placing reliance on the following decisions :- (i) Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. v. DDCIT, Tax case (Appeals) No.1195 by Hon’ble Madras High Court. (ii) Ind Global Corporate Fiannce (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2013) 33 taxmann.com

M/S INDITRADE CAPITAL LTD (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ,KOCHI vs. THE ITO, CORPORATE WARD1(1),, KOCHI

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

ITA 239/COCH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Sri.Aneesh Vishwanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the appellant made a claim for allowance of depreciation at the rate of 25% of the sum paid, placing reliance on the following decisions :- (i) Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. v. DDCIT, Tax case (Appeals) No.1195 by Hon’ble Madras High Court. (ii) Ind Global Corporate Fiannce (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2013) 33 taxmann.com