Search: disallowance | 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.

9 results for “disallowance”+ Section 32(1)(iia)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai276 Delhi201 Chennai147 Kolkata118 Bangalore70 Ahmedabad68 Raipur36 Hyderabad22 Pune20 Indore16 Jaipur14 Nagpur11 Cochin9 Guwahati8 Rajkot8 Surat7 Jodhpur7 Lucknow5 Karnataka4 Chandigarh4 Calcutta3 SC2 Amritsar2 Visakhapatnam2 Panaji1 Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 32(1)(iia)39 Section 32(1)(ii)10 Depreciation9 Disallowance9 Addition to Income9 Section 143(3)8 Deduction6 Section 405 Section 14A5 Section 92C

ERNAKULAM REGIONAL COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNIONS LTD.,KOCHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

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

ITA 588/COCH/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Dec 2022AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Radhesh L. Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR

Section 143(2)Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(iia)

disallowed considering the fact that as per section 32(1) (iia), since the additional depreciation is a one-time benefit

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

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

3

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)

disallowed since there is no enabling section under which the same can be allowed.” 5. Being aggrieved by the assessment order dated 22.12.2016, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who upheld the said assessment order with the observation that the explanation inserted to provision 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 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

disallowances. Later, the AO noticed that the assessee has claimed depreciation on plant & machinery put to use in previous year 2007-08 for an amount of Rs.53,77,981 for AY 2009-10 u/s. 32(1)(iia). The assessee submitted that as per 2nd proviso to section

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

disallowances. Later, the AO noticed that the assessee has claimed depreciation on plant & machinery put to use in previous year 2007-08 for an amount of Rs.53,77,981 for AY 2009-10 u/s. 32(1)(iia). The assessee submitted that as per 2nd proviso to section

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: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 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

disallowances. Later, the AO noticed that the assessee has claimed depreciation on plant & machinery put to use in previous year 2007-08 for an amount of Rs.53,77,981 for AY 2009-10 u/s. 32(1)(iia). The assessee submitted that as per 2nd proviso to section

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

disallowances. Later, the AO noticed that the assessee has claimed depreciation on plant & machinery put to use in previous year 2007-08 for an amount of Rs.53,77,981 for AY 2009-10 u/s. 32(1)(iia). The assessee submitted that as per 2nd proviso to section

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

disallowances. Later, the AO noticed that the assessee has claimed depreciation on plant & machinery put to use in previous year 2007-08 for an amount of Rs.53,77,981 for AY 2009-10 u/s. 32(1)(iia). The assessee submitted that as per 2nd proviso to section

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

Disallowance of additional depreciation u/s. 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

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