Search: depreciation | 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.

18 results for “depreciation”+ Section 25clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,211 Delhi2,982 Bangalore1,237 Chennai1,078 Kolkata627 Ahmedabad464 Jaipur277 Hyderabad241 Pune167 Raipur144 Chandigarh136 Karnataka113 Indore108 Amritsar82 Cochin65 Lucknow61 Visakhapatnam57 SC49 Surat49 Rajkot41 Ranchi40 Telangana33 Guwahati27 Jodhpur27 Nagpur22 Kerala18 Cuttack18 Patna12 Calcutta9 Dehradun9 Agra7 Allahabad7 Varanasi6 Panaji5 Rajasthan5 Punjab & Haryana4 Jabalpur2 A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1 D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1 Gauhati1 Tripura1 MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1 Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 92C2 Section 143(3)2 Depreciation2

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

25. Having regard to the above discussion, we are of the view that the computation of depreciation under Section 32 r/w Section

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 144C

Section 144C(5)

Section 35

Section 43A

Section 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

USHA JOHNSON vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/96/2015HC Kerala25 Nov 2020

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

For Respondent: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

25-11-2020, ALONG WITH ITA.96/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: I.T.A.Nos.96 & 100 of 2015 -3- K.VINOD CHANDRAN & T.R. RAVI,JJ. ------------------------------------------------ I.T.A.Nos.96 & 100 of 2015 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of November, 2020 JUDGMENT T.R.Ravi, J. These two appeals have been filed by the assessee under Income-tax Act, challenging the orders dated

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS

ITA/46/2020HC Kerala03 Apr 2024

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

For Respondent: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

25 :: against delegation with which we are concerned in the present case, is clear; a fiduciary relationship having been created, it is against the interests of society in general that such relationship should be allowed to be terminated unilaterally. That is why the law does not permit delegation by a trustee of his functions, except in cases of necessity

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REENA JOSE

ITA/47/2020HC Kerala03 Apr 2024

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

For Respondent: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

25 :: against delegation with which we are concerned in the present case, is clear; a fiduciary relationship having been created, it is against the interests of society in general that such relationship should be allowed to be terminated unilaterally. That is why the law does not permit delegation by a trustee of his functions, except in cases of necessity

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. SMT.GRACY BABU,

ITA/54/2020HC Kerala03 Apr 2024

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

For Respondent: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

25 :: against delegation with which we are concerned in the present case, is clear; a fiduciary relationship having been created, it is against the interests of society in general that such relationship should be allowed to be terminated unilaterally. That is why the law does not permit delegation by a trustee of his functions, except in cases of necessity

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. GRACY BABU,

ITA/48/2020HC Kerala03 Apr 2024

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

For Respondent: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

25 :: against delegation with which we are concerned in the present case, is clear; a fiduciary relationship having been created, it is against the interests of society in general that such relationship should be allowed to be terminated unilaterally. That is why the law does not permit delegation by a trustee of his functions, except in cases of necessity

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS,

ITA/56/2020HC Kerala03 Apr 2024

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

For Respondent: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

25 :: against delegation with which we are concerned in the present case, is clear; a fiduciary relationship having been created, it is against the interests of society in general that such relationship should be allowed to be terminated unilaterally. That is why the law does not permit delegation by a trustee of his functions, except in cases of necessity

PTL ENTERPRISES LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSONER OF INCOME TX

ITA/206/2013HC Kerala22 Jul 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

For Appellant: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXFor Respondent: M/S.PTL ENTERPRISES LTD

section 154? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in sustaining the order of rectification passed by the Assessing Officer on 16.10.2008 when the CIT(A) had already recorded a fining that the appellant had continued its business during the year and no mistake was apparent from record

M/S PTL ENTERPRISES LTD., vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,

ITA/92/2014HC Kerala22 Jul 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

For Appellant: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXFor Respondent: M/S.PTL ENTERPRISES LTD

section 154? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in sustaining the order of rectification passed by the Assessing Officer on 16.10.2008 when the CIT(A) had already recorded a fining that the appellant had continued its business during the year and no mistake was apparent from record

PTL ENTERPRISES LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

ITA/200/2013HC Kerala22 Jul 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

For Appellant: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXFor Respondent: M/S.PTL ENTERPRISES LTD

section 154? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in sustaining the order of rectification passed by the Assessing Officer on 16.10.2008 when the CIT(A) had already recorded a fining that the appellant had continued its business during the year and no mistake was apparent from record

PTL ENTERPRISES LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/227/2013HC Kerala22 Jul 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

For Appellant: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXFor Respondent: M/S.PTL ENTERPRISES LTD

section 154? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in sustaining the order of rectification passed by the Assessing Officer on 16.10.2008 when the CIT(A) had already recorded a fining that the appellant had continued its business during the year and no mistake was apparent from record

M/S.PTL ENTERPRISES LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

ITA/185/2013HC Kerala22 Jul 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

For Appellant: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXFor Respondent: M/S.PTL ENTERPRISES LTD

section 154? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in sustaining the order of rectification passed by the Assessing Officer on 16.10.2008 when the CIT(A) had already recorded a fining that the appellant had continued its business during the year and no mistake was apparent from record

M/S.PTL ENTERPRISES LTD. (FORMERLY PREMIER TYRES LTD) vs. THE ASSISTNAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),RANGE-2, ERNAKULAM

ITA/207/2013HC Kerala22 Jul 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

For Appellant: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXFor Respondent: M/S.PTL ENTERPRISES LTD

section 154? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in sustaining the order of rectification passed by the Assessing Officer on 16.10.2008 when the CIT(A) had already recorded a fining that the appellant had continued its business during the year and no mistake was apparent from record

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

ITA/26/2013HC Kerala29 Jul 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

depreciation and repair charges aggregating to Rs.27,27,505/- relating to the let out properties. Both the parties have pointed out that a similar disallowance made in preceding year was confirmed by the Tribunal in ITA No.426/Coch/2006. By the immediately following the said order of the Tribunal, we set aside the order of Ld CIT(A) on this issue

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. PTL ENTERPRISES LIMITED,

ITA/483/2009HC Kerala19 Jul 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

For Appellant: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXFor Respondent: M/S.PREMIER TYRES LTD

Sections 28 to 44 of the Act irrespective of doing business. He prays for answering substantial question Nos. 3 to 5 in favour of revenue and against the assessee. 10. Senior Adv.Mr.Joseph Markose argues that the assessee moved BIFR in 1987 and the case of assessee has been taken up for enquiry in 1991, BIFR found that the assessee could

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PREMIER TYRES LTD.

ITA/929/2009HC Kerala19 Jul 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

For Appellant: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXFor Respondent: M/S.PREMIER TYRES LTD

Sections 28 to 44 of the Act irrespective of doing business. He prays for answering substantial question Nos. 3 to 5 in favour of revenue and against the assessee. 10. Senior Adv.Mr.Joseph Markose argues that the assessee moved BIFR in 1987 and the case of assessee has been taken up for enquiry in 1991, BIFR found that the assessee could

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PREMIER TYRES LTD.

ITA/758/2009HC Kerala19 Jul 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

For Appellant: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXFor Respondent: M/S.PREMIER TYRES LTD

Sections 28 to 44 of the Act irrespective of doing business. He prays for answering substantial question Nos. 3 to 5 in favour of revenue and against the assessee. 10. Senior Adv.Mr.Joseph Markose argues that the assessee moved BIFR in 1987 and the case of assessee has been taken up for enquiry in 1991, BIFR found that the assessee could