COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI CENTRAL III vs. OSWAL AGRO MILLS LTD.

Q: Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 32, Section 41(2), Section 32(1)(iii)

ITA-1104/2008HC Delhi2008:DHC:1424024 December 200820 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court upheld the Tribunal's conclusion, though not entirely agreeing with its reasoning. The Court found that the introduction of the 'block of assets' concept in Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, particularly after the amendments effective from April 1, 1989, shifted the focus from individual assets to a group of assets within the same class. The Court referred to CBDT Circular No. 469 dated 23.09.1986, which explained that the amendment aimed to simplify the cumbersome process of calculating depreciation for each asset separately. The Court reasoned that allowing depreciation on a particular asset forming part of the 'block of assets' even if not used in the relevant year does not cause loss to the Revenue, as any sale of such an asset would result in short-term capital gains taxable under Section 41(2). Therefore, the disallowance of depreciation on the Bhopal unit was not justified. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

What were the facts?

The appeals concern the Commissioner of Income Tax (Revenue) against M/s. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. and Oswal Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. (Assessees) for various assessment years. The core issue is the allowability of depreciation on a unit at Bhopal that was closed during the relevant assessment years. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed depreciation on the Bhopal unit, a decision upheld by the CIT(A). However, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) reversed these orders, allowing depreciation. The Revenue is aggrieved by the Tribunal's decision, arguing that depreciation is not allowable if the asset is not used for business purposes.

What were the issues?

1. Whether depreciation is allowable under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on assets forming part of a block of assets, even if a specific asset within that block was not used for business purposes during the relevant assessment year, and if so, on what basis? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Section 32). Assessee's contention: Depreciation is allowable on the entire block of assets, and assets at the Bhopal unit cannot be segregated for depreciation calculation. The unit remained dormant but was part of the block of assets and ready for passive use. The assessee relied on CIT vs. Geo Tech Construction Corporation. Revenue's contention: Depreciation is allowable only if both conditions of Section 32 are met: ownership and use for business or profession. The second condition was not satisfied for the Bhopal unit. The concept of 'block of assets' relates to calculation mode, not a waiver of the 'use' condition. The Bhopal unit was non-functional for six years, indicating more than temporary non-use.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 32,Section 41(2),Section 32(1)(iii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

2008:DHC:14240-DB

More judgments on Section 32

Azure Knowledge Corporation Private… vs The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad
ITA 2013/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Doms Industries Ltd, Valsad vs PCIT, Valsad
ITA 595/SRT/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Aeon Formulations Private Limited, Chennai vs Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward 2(1)…
ITA 2481/CHNY/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Fiitjee Limited, Delhi vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…
ITA 9186/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2012-13
Fiitjee Limited, Delhi vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central…
ITA 9185/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2013-14

All 2,762 judgments and leading authorities on Section 32 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →