CIT v. Viswanath Bhaskar Sathe

5 ITR 621High Court1937#4529 most cited

What is CIT v. Viswanath Bhaskar Sathe authority for?

Depreciation allowance can be claimed for an asset even if it is not actively used in the business, as the term 'used' encompasses both passive and active user. Machinery kept idle may still depreciate.

26

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Viswanath Bhaskar Sathe · 5 ITR 621 · section 32 · depreciation · idle machinery · passive use · active use · ready for use · business asset

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 80A(6)Section 80IASection 80IA(8)

Issues it is cited on

ready for usesection 32companybusiness

Judgments citing CIT v. Viswanath Bhaskar Sathe

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Insilco Ltd

In the result, the question of law framed by us is answered in favour

ITA/873/2008HC Delhi27 Feb 2009

Bench: The Tribunal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred To As The „Cit(A)‟] Allowing Deduction On Account Of Provision Made By

For Appellant: Ms Prem Lata Bansal, Mr Sanjeev Rajpal & Mr MohanFor Respondent: Mr V.P. Gupta & Mr Basant Kumar

…ngible assets; (2) xxxxxx Owned, wholly or partly by the assessee and used for the purposes of the business or profession, the following deductions shall be allowed…..” 17.1 The Bombay High Court, in the case of CIT vs Viswanath Bhaskar Sathe; (1937) 5 ITR 621, in the context of Section 10(2)(vi) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, which is pari materia of Section 32 of the Act, while considering whether an assessee was entitled to depreciation in respect of factory which had not been employed in the work of ginning, interpreted the word „used‟ as found in Section 10(2)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 19…

Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, New Delhi vs. Insilco Limited

In the result, the question of law framed by us is answered in favour

ITA-1156/2008HC Delhi27 Feb 2009

Bench: The Tribunal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred 2009:Dhc:678-Db

For Appellant: Ms Prem Lata Bansal, Mr Sanjeev Rajpal & Mr MohanFor Respondent: Mr V.P. Gupta & Mr Basant Kumar

…ngible assets; (2) xxxxxx Owned, wholly or partly by the assessee and used for the purposes of the business or profession, the following deductions shall be allowed…..” 17.1 The Bombay High Court, in the case of CIT vs Viswanath Bhaskar Sathe; (1937) 5 ITR 621, in the context of Section 10(2)(vi) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, which is pari materia of Section 32 of the Act, while considering whether an assessee was entitled to depreciation in respect of factory which had not been employed in the work of ginning, interpreted the word „used‟ as found in Section 10(2)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 19…

Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, New Delhi vs. Insilco Limited

In the result, the question of law framed by us is answered in favour

ITA-873/2008HC Delhi27 Feb 2009

Bench: The Tribunal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred 2009:Dhc:679-Db

For Appellant: Ms Prem Lata Bansal, Mr Sanjeev Rajpal & Mr MohanFor Respondent: Mr V.P. Gupta & Mr Basant Kumar

…ngible assets; (2) xxxxxx Owned, wholly or partly by the assessee and used for the purposes of the business or profession, the following deductions shall be allowed…..” 17.1 The Bombay High Court, in the case of CIT vs Viswanath Bhaskar Sathe; (1937) 5 ITR 621, in the context of Section 10(2)(vi) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, which is pari materia of Section 32 of the Act, while considering whether an assessee was entitled to depreciation in respect of factory which had not been employed in the work of ginning, interpreted the word „used‟ as found in Section 10(2)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 19…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Insilco Limited

In the result, the question of law framed by us is answered in favour

ITA - 1156 / 2008HC Delhi27 Feb 2009

Bench: The Tribunal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred 2009:Dhc:678-Db

For Appellant: Ms Prem Lata Bansal, Mr Sanjeev Rajpal & Mr MohanFor Respondent: Mr V.P. Gupta & Mr Basant Kumar

…ngible assets; (2) xxxxxx Owned, wholly or partly by the assessee and used for the purposes of the business or profession, the following deductions shall be allowed…..” 17.1 The Bombay High Court, in the case of CIT vs Viswanath Bhaskar Sathe; (1937) 5 ITR 621, in the context of Section 10(2)(vi) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, which is pari materia of Section 32 of the Act, while considering whether an assessee was entitled to depreciation in respect of factory which had not been employed in the work of ginning, interpreted the word „used‟ as found in Section 10(2)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 19…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Insilco Ltd

In the result, the question of law framed by us is answered in favour

ITA - 873 / 2008HC Delhi27 Feb 2009

Bench: The Tribunal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred 2009:Dhc:679-Db

For Appellant: Ms Prem Lata Bansal, Mr Sanjeev Rajpal & Mr MohanFor Respondent: Mr V.P. Gupta & Mr Basant Kumar

…ngible assets; (2) xxxxxx Owned, wholly or partly by the assessee and used for the purposes of the business or profession, the following deductions shall be allowed…..” 17.1 The Bombay High Court, in the case of CIT vs Viswanath Bhaskar Sathe; (1937) 5 ITR 621, in the context of Section 10(2)(vi) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, which is pari materia of Section 32 of the Act, while considering whether an assessee was entitled to depreciation in respect of factory which had not been employed in the work of ginning, interpreted the word „used‟ as found in Section 10(2)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 19…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Saraya Industries Ltd

The appeal is dismissed with costs

ITA/571/2007HC Delhi11 Jan 2008

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA

Section 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)

…[1957] 31 ITR 203, the Bombay ITA No.571/2007 Page 6 of 8 High Court had given it a wider meaning. After considering Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dalmia Cement Ltd., [1945] 13 ITR 415 and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Viswanath Bhaskar Sathe, [1937] 5 ITR 621, this Court was of the view that passive user of machinery such as by keeping it in good working condition so that it could be used at any moment would be the correct approach to adopt for interpreting the expression “used for the purposes of the business” occurring in Section 32 of the Act. 16. All these decisions suggest that the…