Section 43(6)(b) — 16 judgments | BharatTax

STEELFAB BUILDING SYSTEMS,MUMBAI vs. DCIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (2), MUMBAI, 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

LATE PRAVINCHANDRA DWARKADAS DALAL (LEGAL HEIR HITEN PRAVINCHANDRA DALAL),MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IT CIRCLE 42(3)(1) ERSTWHILE CIRCLE 33(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5367/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar – Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 32Section 50

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

DCIT,CIRCLE-5(1)(1), AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. COFFER CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD., TARDEO

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3046/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Mihir Naniwadekar & Shri Rohan Deshpande, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. D/R

Section 3(4)Section 43(1)

provide\nfor any remedy to the revenue in this regard.\n23. The AO has made a reference to the provisions of section 43(6)(b) of the Act. In our\nopinion, these provisions were not applicable to the present case. The applicable\nprovisions to the present case are section 43

PRASIDH FINCAP LTD. ,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-20(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1534/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarprasidh Fincap Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 2Nd Floor, Rsn Arcade, 6 Circle-20(1), Lsc, Near Peince New Delhi Apartment, Ip Extension, Parparganj, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacp6704D

For Appellant: Shri I. P. Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 32

Doom Dooma India Ltd reported in 310 ITR 392 (SC) wherein, the Apex court held as under:- “8. The key word in section 43(6)(b) of the 1961 Act is "actually". We quote hereinbelow an important observation, made by this Court on the meaning of the words "actually allowed ... section 43(6)(b) in the case of Madeva Upendra Sinai v Union of India (1975) 98 ITR 209 (SC), which reads as under: "The pivot of the definition of 'written-down value' is the 'actual cost of the assets Where the asset was acquired and also used

PRASIDH FINCAP LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-20(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 7966/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarprasidh Fincap Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 2Nd Floor, Rsn Arcade, 6 Circle-20(1), Lsc, Near Peince New Delhi Apartment, Ip Extension, Parparganj, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacp6704D

For Appellant: Shri I. P. Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 32

Doom Dooma India Ltd reported in 310 ITR 392 (SC) wherein, the Apex court held as under:- “8. The key word in section 43(6)(b) of the 1961 Act is "actually". We quote hereinbelow an important observation, made by this Court on the meaning of the words "actually allowed ... section 43(6)(b) in the case of Madeva Upendra Sinai v Union of India (1975) 98 ITR 209 (SC), which reads as under: "The pivot of the definition of 'written-down value' is the 'actual cost of the assets Where the asset was acquired and also used

PRASIDH FINCAP LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-20(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 7965/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarprasidh Fincap Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 2Nd Floor, Rsn Arcade, 6 Circle-20(1), Lsc, Near Peince New Delhi Apartment, Ip Extension, Parparganj, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacp6704D

For Appellant: Shri I. P. Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 32

Doom Dooma India Ltd reported in 310 ITR 392 (SC) wherein, the Apex court held as under:- “8. The key word in section 43(6)(b) of the 1961 Act is "actually". We quote hereinbelow an important observation, made by this Court on the meaning of the words "actually allowed ... section 43(6)(b) in the case of Madeva Upendra Sinai v Union of India (1975) 98 ITR 209 (SC), which reads as under: "The pivot of the definition of 'written-down value' is the 'actual cost of the assets Where the asset was acquired and also used

MALABAR CEMENTS LIMITED,PALAKKAD vs. ACIT, PALAKKAD

ITA 71/COCH/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Harikrishnan Unny, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R

Section 143(2)Section 250

India Ltd. [2009] 310 ITR 392 (SC) has also decided the very issue against the department as follows: - “8. The key word in section 43(6)(b) of the 1961 Act is "actually". We quote hereinbelow an important observation, made by this court on the meaning of the words “actually ... allowed: in section 43(6)(b) in the case of Madeva Upendra Sinai v. Union of India [1975] 98 ITR 209 (SC) at pages 223 and 224, which reads as under: "The pivot of the definition of 'written down value' is the 'actual cost of the assets. Where the asset