CIT v. Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd.

96 ITR 672High Court1974#10813 most cited

What is CIT v. Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. authority for?

Depreciation is a statutory allowance and is available as a right to the assessee once the conditions under Section 32 are met, irrespective of whether there has been an actual diminution in the asset's value.

10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2005 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. · section 32 · depreciation allowance · statutory allowance · diminution in value · wear and tear · entitlement as of right · prescribed allowance

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 14A of the Income Tax ActSection 263 of the Income Tax ActSection 32 of the Income Tax Act

Issues it is cited on

section 32(1)intangible assetssection 32previous yearprescribedcompanysection 143(3)indiatotal incomebusinesssection 14document

Judgments citing CIT v. Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd.

Goldman Sachs (India) Finance Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, Income-Tax Department, New Delhi

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

ITA 6766/MUM/2024[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 253Section 32Section 37(1)

…ndition precedent for claiming depreciation as per the provision of section 32 of the Act. Therefore, under the Act, depreciation is a statutory allowance as was held by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd., reported in (1974) 96 ITR 672 (Guj.). The relevant observations of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the aforesaid decision, are reproduced as follows: - "However, the position is entirely different under section 32 of the Income-tax Act. The depreciation allowance thereunder is a statutory allowance not confined expressly to diminution in value of the asset by reason of wear…

Makson Pharmaceuticals(India) Private Limited, Surendranagar vs. Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1017/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Jul 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri M J Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…itted the photos of the said factory premises where such appliances have been installed as Exhibit 1. In this regard, the assessee has placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) Decision of Gujarat High Court in case of CIT vs. ElconEngg. Co. Ltd. [1974] 96 ITR 672 (Gujarat) (8) Decision in case of CIT vs. Tarun Commercial Mills Ltd. [1985] 151 ITR 75 (Guj.). (iii) Decision in case of CIT vs. Subrata Dutta Choudhary [2010]c32 (I) ITCL 120 (P&H-HC) 11.2 On perusal of the submissions made by the assessee, it was observed that the assessee has claimed additional depreciation on cameras and air conditioners on t…

Dy. CIT Special Range-1, Lucknow vs. M/S Indo Gulf Fertilizers & Chemicalscoeporation Ltd, Sultanpur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

ITA 1539/LKW/1996[1990-91]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Nov 2024AY 1990-91

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(3)Section 256(1)Section 32ASection 35D

…axmann.com 204 (Delhi-Trib.) 4. CIT vs. Shree Synthetics Ltd. [1986] 162 ITR 819 (MP HC) 5. CIT vs. Multi Metals Ltd. [1991] 188 ITR 151 (Raj. (HC) 6. Scientific Engg. House (P) Ltd. vs. CIT [1985] 157 ITR 86 (SC) 7. CIT vs. Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. [1974] 96 ITR 672 (Guj. HC) 8. CIT vs. Hindustan Times Ltd. [1999] 241 ITR 509 (Del. HC) 9. Chief Commissioner Admn vs. Visveswarayya Iron & Steel Ltd. [1993] 199 ITR 98 (Kar. HC) 10. Kalinga Tubes Ltd. vs. CIT [1974] 96 ITR 20 (Orissa HC) 11. CIT vs. Birla Jute & Industries Ltd. [2003] 260 ITR 55 (Cal. HC) 12. CIT vs. Electronics Research Industries (P) Ltd. [1991…

Jm Morgan Stanley Securities P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 4(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 7118/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M. LalaFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 40Section 40A(2)

…. As per the AO, depreciation can be allowed if the asset is shown to be capable of diminishing value. In support of its aforesaid findings, the AO has placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs Elecon Engineering Co Ltd, [1974] 96 ITR 672 (Gujarat). We find that the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in aforesaid decision observed as under: “It appears to us, therefore, that it would not be correct to limit the meaning of the word "plant" in section 32 to only such articles as are capable of diminution in value year after year by reason of wear and tear in the course of their application…

Terex Equipment Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5828/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 32(1)Section 92C

…ries on the reasoning given by the AO and the DRP. The Ld. AR placed reliance on the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Technico Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 206 ITR 36 and Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. 96 ITR 672 in support of its contention. 18. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, submitted that assessee is not eligible for claim of additional depreciation. It was submitted that the AO has not disallowed the additional depreciation only on the ground of small plant but also that these assets are not used for manufacturing of article or thing. The Ld. DR invit…

Shanti Bhushan vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITR-230/1994HC Delhi31 May 2011
For Appellant: Mr. S.K.PathakFor Respondent: Ms. Rashmi Chopra
Section 144Section 256(2)Section 31Section 37

…owability of expenses made by the assessee both under Section 31 and 37 of the IT Act. Insofar as Section 31 is concerned, the Tribunal relying upon the test as laid down by the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. (1974) 96 ITR 672 (Guj.) came to the conclusion that for the expenses incurred on the repair of the plant to be allowed, the assessee would have to demonstrably show that the plant was used as a “tool” with which he carried out his business or professional activity. Applying the said test, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the assessee could not have d…

Commisioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd

ITA-161/2006HC Delhi24 Dec 2010

…* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA No.161 of 2006 with ITA No. 617 of 2006 ITA No. 998 of 2008 ITA No.1104 of 2008 ITA No. 1283 of 2008 Reserved On: OCTOBER 27, 2010. % Pronounced On: DECEMBER 24, 2010. 1) ITA No.161 of 2006 COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX . . . Appellant through : Mr. N.P. Sahni, Advocate and Ms. P.L. Bansal, Advocate. VERSUS M/s. OSWAL AGRO MILLS LTD. . . .Respondent through: Mr. C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate with…

C.I.T vs. Denso India Ltd

ITA/16/2008HC Delhi08 Oct 2010

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL

…ion, Japan, could be treated as “plant” under Section 32 (1) (i) of the Act and, therefore, the expenditure was to be termed as capital in nature warranting depreciation thereupon. 12. In the case of the CIT Vs. Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. 96 ITR 672 the Court held as under:- “Know-how is a peculiar kind of asset. It is the accumulated fund of knowledge acquired by years of observation, research, experimentation and experience. The whole of it is not in an intangible form even while it is in the process of being acquired and very often it takes a physical form, as it grows, in the shape…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Fluor Daniel India P.Ltd

Appeals are dismissed

ITA - 1141 / 2008HC Delhi30 Nov 2009
Section 32

…n support of her submission: 4. - i) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. [253 ITR 520] - ii) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Harsha Tractor Ltd. [249 ITR 499] - iii) Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat-II Vs. Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. [96 ITR 672] - iv) Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat v. Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. [166 ITR 66] ![](_page_8_Picture_1.jpeg) - (iii) The use of any patent, invention, model, design, section formula or process or trade mark or similar property; - (iv) The imparting of any information concerning technical, industrial, commercial or scientific knowledge, exp…

Commnr. of Customs (General), N. Delhi vs. Gujarat Perstorp Electronics Ltd

The appeals are allowed

C.A. No.-008568-008569 - 2001Supreme Court05 Aug 2005
For Respondent: M/s. Gujarat Perstorp Electronics Ltd
Section 28(1)

…law and deserves to be overruled. It was also submitted that in that case, this Court did not consider in their proper perspective several decisions particularly decisions in Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat vs. Elecon Engineering Company Ltd., (1974) 96 ITR 672 (Guj) and of this Court in Scientific Engineering House Ltd. vs. CIT (1986) 1 SCC 11. It was submitted that though the point was directly covered by an earlier decision of this Court, a two Judge Bench attempted to distinguish the said case and came to incorrect conclusion. It was also submitted that earlier when these http://JUDIS.NIC.I…

CIT v. Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. (96 ITR 672) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax