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 194clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai417Delhi297Bangalore129Chennai85Kolkata70Ahmedabad50Jaipur50Raipur36Hyderabad31Indore16Lucknow14Chandigarh13Cochin12Amritsar12Pune9Karnataka9Surat7Visakhapatnam5SC4Allahabad3Telangana3Nagpur3Ranchi2Agra2Jodhpur2Cuttack2Calcutta2Kerala2Patna1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 92C2Section 143(3)2

M/S. KINFRA EXPORT PROMOTION INDUSTRIAL PARKS LTD., vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD)

ITA/65/2018HC Kerala07 Apr 2022

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

Section 260A

Section 43(1). 2 (2022) 2 SCC 603 3(MANU/MH/1197/2019) ITA Nos.62&65/2018 16 9. Without prejudice to the main argument of applicability of Explanation and proviso to 43(1) of the Act, it is alternatively argued that orders impugned in the appeal are illegal and computation of written down value on a broad spectrum of all the assets

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 LTD
For Respondent: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 35Section 43ASection 92C

depreciation under Section 40(3)(i) of the Act. The abstract application of the reported judgments in Sakthi Sugars and Priya Village Roadshows Ltd cases resulted in an unacceptable finding, particularly, in the available circumstances of the case. He prays for setting aside the allowance granted by the Tribunal. 5. Per contra, learned Senior Advocate Mr Joseph Markos contends that