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.

2 results for “depreciation”+ Section 144Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai662Delhi580Bangalore335Chennai83Kolkata82Hyderabad53Ahmedabad41Pune30Indore9Cochin9Jaipur9Karnataka6Dehradun6Surat5Visakhapatnam3Panaji2Kerala2Raipur1Rajkot1SC1Guwahati1Telangana1Lucknow1Chandigarh1Nagpur1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)4Section 92C3Section 144C(5)2Section 352Transfer Pricing2Deduction2Addition to Income2

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. APOLLO TYRES LTD

Appeal is allowed in part as indicated

ITA/44/2017HC Kerala22 Sept 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

For Appellant: M/S. APOLLO TYRES LTDFor Respondent: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 35Section 43ASection 92C

depreciation; the question is whether the claim of the assessee conforms the deduction permissible under Section 37(1) of the Act. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the preoperative expenses amounting to Rs.26,97,79,538/- incurred by the assessee are revenue expenses, and are correctly so held by the Tribunal

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI -I vs. M/S.APOLLO TYRES LTD

ITA/43/2017HC Kerala31 Aug 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

For Appellant: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI -IFor Respondent: M/S.APOLLO TYRES LTD
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 35Section 80Section 92C

depreciation brought forward from immediately preceding assessment year has to be allowed in the subsequent assessment year and is nto the above finding against law and perverse? 2. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case is the Hon'ble ITAT is right in law in allowing the assessee's claim of weighted deduction under Section