Landmark Cases on Depreciation and Allowances

264 decisions, ranked by how many judgments on BharatTax rely on them.

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd.: (61 TTJ 656, Delhi) 5. Comfort Living Hotels (P) Ltd. v. CIT
363 ITR 182 · 2014 · High Court
10
citing judgments

Depreciation claims can be disallowed if the assessee fails to furnish evidence in support of the claim.

CIT v. Rittal India Pvt. Ltd.
380 ITR 428 · 2016 · High Court
10
citing judgments

Additional depreciation, when restricted to 50% in the preceding year due to the asset being used for less than 180 days, can be claimed in the subsequent assessment year for the remaining eligible amount.

Motor and General Fine Ltd. v. Income-Tax Officer
393 ITR 60 · Reported
10
citing judgments

An assessee's claim for set-off of unabsorbed depreciation beyond the period of 8 years must be allowed, in view of the amended provisions of section 32(2) effective from April 1, 2002. This case clarifies that unabsorbed depreciation is allowed to be carried forward and set off without any time limit.

Cherian Varkey Construction CO.(P.) Ltd. v. UOI
406 ITR 262 · 2018 · High Court
10
citing judgments

Making Ready Mix Concrete (RMC) is considered a manufacturing process, entitling assessees engaged in construction to additional depreciation on plant and machinery used in this activity.

Cyber India Online Limited v. ACIT
42 Taxmann.com 108 · 2014 · High Court
10
citing judgments

Depreciation is allowable on goodwill arising on merger. The disallowance of depreciation on goodwill cannot be based solely on its absence in post-merger financial statements or tax audit reports.

Himatsingka Seide Ltd. v. CIT
48 Taxmann.com 357 · 2014 · Supreme Court
10
citing judgments

Unabsorbed depreciation loss of earlier years is to be treated as current depreciation under Section 32(2) and profits eligible for deduction under Section 10B are to be computed after deducting such losses.

193 (Kolkata-Trib.), Century Enka Ltd. v. DCIT
57 Taxmann.com 95 · 2015 · ITAT
10
citing judgments

An assessee is entitled to claim the remaining 50% of depreciation in a subsequent year if the asset was put to use for less than 180 days in the year of addition, and the first 50% was not claimed. Capital investment subsidies received for setting up a project in a backward area are considered capital subsidies and do not require reduction from the cost of assets under Explanation 10 to Section 43(1).

CIT v. State Bank of Patiala
70 Taxmann.com 36 · 2016 · Supreme Court
10
citing judgments

The Supreme Court dismisses a revenue appeal concerning depreciation on ATMs on grounds of delay, leaving the substantive question of law open.

Bhagwati Sponge (P) Ltd. v. DCIT
72 Taxmann.com 40 · 2016 · Reported
10
citing judgments

Capital investment subsidies received from a state government cannot be reduced from the cost of a capital asset for the purpose of allowing depreciation. Depreciation is mandatory and must be allowed irrespective of whether it was claimed in the return.

Mid East Port Folio Management Ltd. v. DCIT
87 ITD 537 · 2003 · ITAT
10
citing judgments

The Special Bench of the ITAT held that depreciation is admissible on assets leased to the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (RSEB), even if used for less than 180 days in the relevant assessment year. This decision has been followed for remanding cases back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

Jupiter Radios v. DCIT
88 Taxmann.com 93 · 2017 · High Court
10
citing judgments
CIT v. Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd.
96 ITR 672 · 1974 · High Court
10
citing judgments

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.

CIT v. Nahar Exports Ltd.
173 Taxmann 3 · 2008 · High Court
10
citing judgments

Machinery that is ready for use but not actively employed in the business can still be considered 'used for the purposes of the business' for depreciation claims, especially if it forms part of a block of assets.

CIT v. Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Ltd.
291 ITR 362 · 2007 · High Court
10
citing judgments

Depreciation is allowable on standby machinery that is kept ready for use, even if not actually put to use due to reasons such as raw material paucity. This is permissible as long as the business is a going concern.