“Section 43(6)”

Section References (mined)Section 43Section 43(6)257 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 43(6) is Union of India v. Tata Chemicals Ltd. (363 ITR 658), cited in 91 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 43(6)

Union of India v. Tata Chemicals Ltd.

363 ITR 658 · 2014 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

The Department has a moral and legal obligation to refund excess tax collected from taxpayers, along with interest. An assessee is entitled to interest on the amount of taxes refunded, including interest on interest, as per Section 244A of the Income-tax Act.

Joint Commissioner. 10. In Shin Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd. v. Aksh Optifibre Ltd.

7 SCC 234 · 2005 · Reported

citing judgments

A statute prescribing a procedure using negative language (e.g., 'in no other manner') imposes absolute requirements, and failure to comply will invalidate the entire proceeding.

Sharp Business System v. CIT III

27 Taxmann.com 50 · 2012 · High Court

citing judgments

A non-compete fee, being a capital expenditure, is not allowable as a deduction from income and does not qualify for depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Sharp Business System v. CIT

254 CTR 233 · 2012 · High Court

citing judgments

Depreciation is allowable on a non-compete fee as it constitutes an intangible asset, even if the right acquired cannot be transferred, provided it is treated as part of a block of assets.

Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia Bahadur v. Union of India

3 SCR 9 · 1971 · Reported

citing judgments

A word, clause, or sentence from a court judgment, when taken out of context, does not represent a complete exposition of the law on a question that the judgment did not explicitly address.

Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT

122 Taxmann.com 40 · 2020 · Reported

citing judgments

Where goodwill is recorded pursuant to a merger based on purchase consideration determined by a valuation report, and no goodwill is transferred from the predecessor's books, the fifth proviso to section 32(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is not applicable, and thus depreciation on such goodwill is not allowable.

United Breweries Ltd. v. ACIT

76 Taxmann.com 103 · 2016 · ITAT

citing judgments

Depreciation on goodwill arising from amalgamation is not admissible to the amalgamated company if no goodwill was admitted in the hands of the amalgamating company, applying Explanation 7 to Section 43(1) and the Sixth Proviso to Section 32(1)(ii).

194 Taxman 43 (Delhi) (ii) The Pr. CIT, Central-1 v. Adamine Construction (P.) Ltd.

99 Taxmann.com 45 · 2018 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Where the Assessing Officer (AO) does not conduct any further inquiry or investigation to support additions made, and there is no positive evidence to confirm the AO's action, additions under section 68 cannot be sustained if the loan transaction was properly documented and repaid through banking channels.

Judgments citing Section 43(6)

Vitp Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 574/HYD/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood (Judicial Member), Shri Madhusudan Sawdia (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Advocates Percy Perdiwala and Mahima GoudFor Respondent: : Shri Shahnawaz-ul-Rahman

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 43(6)Section 80I

adopted as the actual cost in the depreciation schedule of the assessee company as required under Explanation 2 to section 43(6) of the Act. Accordingly, he concluded that the assessee company had taken excess WDV of Rs.56,78,75,869/-, resulting in excess claim of depreciation of Rs.3 ... assets and thereby claimed an excess depreciation of Rs.3,37,71,787/-. The Ld. AR further submitted that, as per Explanation 2 to section 43(6) of the Act, the assessee can add to its block of assets the value of assets received from subsidiary after reducing the depreciation “actually

Vitp Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle8(1), Hyderabad

ITA 573/HYD/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.573 & 574/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Vitp Private Limited Vs. Dy. Cit Hyderabad Circle 8 (1) Pan:Aaccv2672G Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: Advocates Percy Perdiwala & Mahima Goud राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By:: Shri Shahnawaz-Ul-Rahman, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 08/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: These Two Appeals Are Filed By Vitp Private Limited (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Hyderabad, (“Ld.Pcit”), Dated 30/03/2024 For The A.Y.2017-18. As Both The Appeals Are Interrelated & Belongs To The Same, Both Are Heard Together & One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Brevity.

For Appellant: Advocates Percy Perdiwala andFor Respondent: : Shri Shahnawaz-ul-Rahman

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(3)Section 263Section 80Section 801A

Developers Pvt. Ltd was not adopted as actual cost in the depreciation schedule of M/s VITP Pvt. Ltd. as per explanation 2 of section 43(6) of Act. Hence, the VITP Pvt. Ltd. claimed excess WDV of Rs.56, 78, 75,869/- which needs to be disallowed. This excess WDV resuted ... adopted as the actual cost in the depreciation schedule of the assessee company as required under Explanation 2 to section 43(6) of the Act. Accordingly, he concluded that the assessee company had taken excess WDV of Rs.56,78,75,869/-, resulting in excess claim of depreciation of Rs.3

Tourism Corporation of Gujarat Limited, Gandhinagar vs. PCIT Ahmedabad - 3, Ahmedabad

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1275/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 43(1)

block of assets, it loses its individual identity and the written down value of the block can only be adjusted in accordance with section 43(6)(c), which permits adjustments only for additions and disposals during the year. It was argued that the Statute does not permit reducing ... acquired in FY 2016-17 and once they entered the block of assets, the WDV could not be reduced in subsequent years under section 43(6)(c). We are unable to accept this contention, since the Principal Commissioner has correctly observed that tax depreciation is governed

Lupin Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3257/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2019-20 Lupin Limited, Principal Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Kalpataru Inspire, Income Tax-3, Off Western Express Highway, Vs. Room No. 612, 6Th Floor, Santacruz (East), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400055. Maharshi Karve Road, Pan : Aaacl1069K Mumbai-400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora & Shri Pranay Gandhi Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 43(6)

from Business and Profession without appreciating the fact that same has already been reduced from the block of assets as per provisions of Section 43(6) of the Act for calculation of depreciation under Income Tax Act. 8. erred in misinterpreting the definition of the "money payable as defined under ... Explanation 4 to Section 43(6) r.w.s 41 of the Act which precisely includes an insurance claim in respect of a building, machinery, plant or furniture and thus can be deducted for computing Written Down Value (WDV) as per provisions of section 43(6) of the Act: 9 erred

Tata Communications Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the question of law referred to the Special Bench is answered in favour of the assessee

ITA 3515/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Arun Khodpiatata Communications Limited Pr. Cit, Videsh Sanchar Bhavan, Mumbai-1 Vs. M. G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacv 2808 C (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri J. D. Mistri Respondent By : Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Present Appeal, At The Instance Of The Assessee, Assails Order Dated 21.03.2025, Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short), By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (‘Ld. Pcit’ For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds, Both On Jurisdictional Issues As Well As On Merits, However, There Is Consensus Between The Parties That The Appeal Can Be Decided On Merits, In Which Event, There Is No Need To Go Into Various Other Issues Raised In Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri J. D. MistriFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 112Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50

claim deduction of the written down value of the asset in respect of which depreciation was claimed in any year as defined under section 43(6) of the Act towards cost of acquisition within the meaning of sections 48 and 49 of the Act. The condition for computation of short

Agri Gold Foods and Farm Products Limited, Vijayawada vs. Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Vijayawada

ITA 2000/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Us:

Section 143(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, विशाखापटणम पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Visakhapatnam Bench श्री रिीश सूद, माननीय न्याययक सदस्य

Maxxis Rubber India Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1129/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 32(1)

provides that depreciation has to be charged on the written down value of any block of assets as per the rates prescribed. Further section 43(6)(c) of the Act provides that the written down value of a block of asset shall be computed by taking

The Acti, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Nirma Limited, Ahmedabad

ITA 1437/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.1412 & 1413/Ahd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: (2015-2016 & 2016-17) Nirma Limited, Nirma House, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. (Gujarat) बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad. स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacn5350K आयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.1436-1437/Ahd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : (2015-16 & 2016-17) The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad. Nirma Limited, बनाम / V/S. Nirma House, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. (Gujarat) स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacn5350K & C.O Nos.11-12/Ahd/2020 In आयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.1436-1437/Ahd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : (2015-16 & 2016-17) Nirma Limited, Nirma House, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. (Gujarat) The Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम/ V/S. Income Tax/The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad. स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacn5350K अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी / (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, withFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

Explanation 3(b) of Section 32(1): 'Goodwill of a Business or Profession' has been specifically excluded from the definition of intangible assets. Section 43(6)(c)(ii): Definition of WDV of the block of assets has been amended to provide that written down value of Goodwill is required ... linked with the block of assets, and the WDV of such block has to be carried forward year after year in terms of section 43(6). The Assessing Officer is not permitted to artificially alter the WDV by re-examining the allowability of depreciation already accepted in earlier years

The Acti, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Nirma Limited, Ahmedabad

ITA 1436/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, withFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

Explanation 3(b) of Section 32(1): 'Goodwill of a Business or Profession' has been specifically excluded from the definition of intangible assets. Section 43(6)(c)(ii): Definition of WDV of the block of assets has been amended to provide that written down value of Goodwill is required ... linked with the block of assets, and the WDV of such block has to be carried forward year after year in terms of Section 43(6). The Assessing Officer is not permitted to artificially alter the WDV by re-examining the allowability of depreciation already accepted in earlier years

Nirma Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dcti, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 1413/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, withFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

Nirma Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dcti, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 1412/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.1412 & 1413/Ahd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: (2015-2016 & 2016-17) Nirma Limited, Nirma House, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. (Gujarat) The Deputy Commissioner बनाम / Of Income Tax, V/S. Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad. स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacn5350K आयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.1436-1437/Ahd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : (2015-16 & 2016-17) The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad. Nirma Limited, बनाम / Nirma House, V/S. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. (Gujarat) स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacn5350K & C.O Nos.11-12/Ahd/2020 In आयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.1436-1437/Ahd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : (2015-16 & 2016-17) Nirma Limited, Nirma House, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. (Gujarat) The Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम/ V/S. Income Tax/The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad. स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacn5350K अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी / (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, withFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

ACIT, Circle-1(1), Rajkot vs. Gandhi Reality (India) Private Limited, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 110/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, Ld. CIT. (DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 230

198/Hyd/2011), sixth proviso to section 32(1) of the Act, Explanation 7 to section 43(1) and Explanation 2(b) to section 43(6)(c) cannot be invoked. 27. The ld. CIT(A) further noticed that the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

Novateur Electrical and Digital Systems Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 944/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Tiwari and Shri Lekh Mehta, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 32Section 92CSection 92C(2)

sixth proviso (fifth proviso) of section 32(1), explanation 7 to section 43(1) and explanation 2 to section 43(6)(c). Ld. CIT(A) also noted while accepting the arguments of the assessee that ld. Assessing Officer had not brought on record anything concrete showing that the valuation report ... slump sale.” 7.2. For the reference made by the authorities below to explanation 7 to section 43(1) and explanation 2 to section 43(6)(c), we note that they apply for determining actual cost/written down value in cases relating to amalgamation. They do not apply in the case

Dy CIT 10(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Novateur Electricals and Digital Systems Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1189/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Tiwari and Shri Lekh Mehta, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 32Section 92CSection 92C(2)

Thermo Fisher Scientific India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as per our aforesaid

ITA 2847/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2847/Mum/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2020-21 Thermo Fisher Scientific India Private Limited 403-404, Delphil B Wing, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai Iit, Mumbai-400 076 Pan : Aabct3207A ........अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-15(3)(1), Mumbai ......प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vipul Soni Revenue By : Shri Himanshu Joshi, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing :14.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 20.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri Vipul SoniFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 32(1)Section 80G

slump sale transactions, which is the case of the assessee. 5.21 The learned Assessing Officer has further relied on Explanation-2 to Section 43(6) of the Act, which reads as under: "Explanation 2.—Where in any previous year, any block of assets is transferred,— (a) by a holding company

Sabeena Silk Mills, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 31(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 1508/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narndra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjeesabeena Silk Mills Vs Income-Tax Officer 31(1)(1), Apurva Industrial Estate, Mumbai, Majwana Road, Marol Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra, Mumbai-400 059 Mumbai-400 051 Pan: Aabfs3210R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri H.N. MotiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui (SR.DR.)

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 50

considered under Section 41(2) of the Act. In response, the Ld. DR contended that the process of calculation is clearly outlined in Section 43(6)(c)(i) of the Act, which applies to "any block of assets," including both movable and immovable assets. It was argued that the judgment

DCIT-Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai vs. Navkar Corporation Limited, Navi Mumbai

In the result, we affirm the order of the Ld

ITA 1846/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 32Section 80Section 801ASection 801A(4)(i)Section 801A(5)Section 801A(8)Section 80I

Audit Report tables reproduced on record. 32. Under the block of assets regime of section 32 read with section 43(6), no separate capital gain or business profit arises on sale of an individual asset unless the block ceases to exist or the full value of consideration exceeds the block

M/S. Bodal Chemicals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals being IT(SS)A No

ITA 318/AHD/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Nagar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-DR and Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR

Section 115JSection 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 153A(1)(b)

negotiable instrument a valid mode of payment) was for a tangible asset (at their book value) and also for the said tangibles). Section 43(6) Explanation 2(b) will not be applicable as that section deals with an asset already recorded in the books of amalgamating company whatever the value ... recording as generated assets. As per accounting standard-26, the same cannot be brought in the books of accounts. The intention of Section 43(6) Explanation 2(d) is to prohibit claim of higher depreciation on depreciated asset existing in books of IT(SS)A No. 27 to 30/Ahd/2021

Thermo Fisher Scientific India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 15 (3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 7845/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Chandni Shah & Ms. Hinal ShahFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe

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

related to slump sale transactions, which is the case of the assessee. 5.21 The learned Assessing Officer has further relied Explanation-2 to section 43(6) of the Act, which reads as under: "Explanation 2.—Where in any previous year, any block of assets is transferred,— (a) by a holding

Steelfab Building Systems, Mumbai vs. DCIT. Central Circle 1 (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3196/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Steelfab Building Systems Deputy Commissioner Of Income Embassy Centre, 604, Tax, Central Circle – 1(2), 6Th Floor, Jamnalal Bajaj Mumbai Vs. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 (Pan : Aaxfs5995B) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Fenil Bhatt, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 32

Doom Dooma India Ltd. [2009] 310 ITR 392 (SC). Hon'ble Court analysed the words “depreciation actually allowed” as occurring in section 43(6)(b) to arrive at “written down value” as defined u/s. 43(6). Hon'ble Court, came to conclusion in para-9 that meaning of the words ... actually allowed” in section 43(6)(b) is to be “limited to depreciation actually taken into account or granted and given effect to, i.e., debited by the Income-tax Officer against the incomings of the business in computing the taxable income of the assessee”. We also refer to the decision