“additional depreciation”

DepreciationSection 32(1)(iia)Section 32(1)(iia)604 judgments

The decision most relied on for additional depreciation is Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT (196 ITR 188), cited in 289 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on additional depreciation

Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT

196 ITR 188 · 1992 · Supreme Court

289

citing judgments

Provisions in taxing statutes that grant incentives, concessions, or exemptions for promoting economic growth and industrialization must be interpreted liberally and purposively. Any restrictions placed on such provisions should also be construed reasonably to advance their objective, not frustrate it.

CIT v. Chaphalkar Brothers

400 ITR 279 · 2018 · Supreme Court

136

citing judgments

A subsidy is classified as a capital receipt if its object is to enable the assessee to set up or expand a new or existing unit. Conversely, it is a revenue receipt if its purpose is to help the assessee run the business more profitably.

CIT v. Rittal India (P) Limited

380 ITR 423 · 2016 · High Court

121

citing judgments

Additional depreciation is allowable under section 32(1)(iia) for new machinery or plant even when put to use for less than 180 days, with the unabsorbed balance available for claim in the subsequent year.

CIT v. Sesa Goa Ltd.

271 ITR 331 · 2004 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Extraction and processing of iron ore constitutes "production" for the purpose of claiming tax benefits like investment allowance under Section 32A and additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia), even if it does not amount to "manufacture".

CIT v. Shri T.P. Textiles (P.) Ltd.

394 ITR 483 · 2017 · High Court

citing judgments

An assessee is entitled to claim the balance 10% of additional depreciation in the succeeding assessment year if the new plant and machinery were put to use for less than 180 days in the previous year.

CIT v. Hi Tech Arai Ltd.

321 ITR 477 · 2010 · High Court

citing judgments

The court may allow additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) for new machinery if it is used in the business of any article or thing, even if not directly linked to increasing production capacity.

CIT v. VTM Ltd.

319 ITR 336 · 2009 · High Court

citing judgments

An assessee engaged in the manufacture or production of an article or thing is entitled to additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) for new machinery or plant, such as a windmill for power generation, even if it is not directly used in the primary manufacturing activity.

South Indian Bank Ltd. v. CIT

262 ITR 579 · 2003 · High Court

citing judgments

For banks, bad debts written off from non-rural advances are not subject to the limitations of the provisos to sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viii), as these provisos apply only to rural advances; section 36(1)(viia) also applies exclusively to rural advances. Additionally, depreciation on investments valued at market price on the balance sheet date is eligible for deduction.

Judgments citing additional depreciation

Asian Paints Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1673/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Fenil Bhatt a/wFor Respondent: Shri Vachashpati Tripathi

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 37(1)

circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT (A) was right in allowing Rs. 286.47 lacs on account of balance 10% additional depreciation on additions made in A.Y. 2014-15, without appreciating the facts of the case? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances ... Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 41. The issue arising in ground no.3, raised in Revenue’s appeal, pertains to the allowance of balance additional depreciation. 42. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from the record, are: During the assessment proceedings, it was observed that

DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 840/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Vachashpati Tripathi

Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 250

circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT (A) erred in allouring Rs. 70,31,74,747/-on account of balance 10% additional depreciation on additions made in A. Y. 2013-14, without appreciating the facts of the case." 4."On the facts and in the circumstances ... Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 32. The issue arising in ground no.3, raised in Revenue’s appeal, pertains to the allowance of balance additional depreciation. 33. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from the record, are: During the assessment proceedings, it was observed that

Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai

The appeal is dismissed holding that the learned CIT appeal is correct in allowing

ITA 269/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Vachashpati Tripathi

Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 250

circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT (A) erred in allouring Rs. 70,31,74,747/-on account of balance 10% additional depreciation on additions made in A. Y. 2013-14, without appreciating the facts of the case." 4. "On the facts and in the circumstances ... Revenue's appeal is dismissed. 32. The issue arising in ground no.3, raised in Revenue's appeal, pertains to the allowance of balance additional depreciation. 33. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from the record, are: During the assessment proceedings, it was observed that

DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 841/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailasian Paints Ltd. Asian Paints House 6A, Shanti Nagar, Santacruz (East) Mumbai 400 055 Pan – Aaaca3622K Appellant Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Mumbai V/S

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Vachashpati Tripathi

Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 268/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailasian Paints Ltd. Asian Paints House

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Vachashpati Tripathi

Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5934/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Vachashpati Tripathi

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5363/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Us.

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14A

ASIAN PAINTS LTD. ITA NO.5363/MUM./2017 ITA NO.5934/MUM./2017 ("the Act") by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-55

K P Sanghvi & Sons LLP, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-19(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3565/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm K P Sanghvi & Sons Llp Asst. Cit-19(2) 12A-03, Crescenzo, C-38/39, Mumbai Vs. G – Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaafk 8390 F (Assessee) (Respondent) :

For Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

where the ld. A.O. made an addition of Rs.2,47,45,023/- towards bogus purchases and Rs.1,24,13,323/- on the additional depreciation claimed by the assessee and determined the total income at Rs.45,15,07,810/-. The ld. A.O. also initiated the penalty proceedings

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1, Kolhapur vs. Sadashivrao Mandlik Kagal Taluka Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Kolhapur

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 2730/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Dr. Nitin Patil

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 32

I.T.A.No.2730/PUN./2017 1. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the law, the CIT(A)-2, Kolhapur has erred in allowing additional depreciation for AY 2011-12 considering the fact that assessee has forgone such claim which was available ... facts and in the circumstances of the law, the CIT(A)-2, Kolhapur, erred in not appreciating the legal position, that additional depreciation u/s.32(l)(iia) of the Act is allowed for the "only" year during which new machinery or plant acquired and installed, as well as, such claim

Supermax Personal Care P. Ltd., Thane vs. Dy CIT -3(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed in above terms

ITA 687/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Gupta & Shri AjinkyaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Ld. DR

Section 250Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 92C

differences such as working capital employed by the Assessee vis a vis comparable companies. Addition on account of corporate tax adjustments Disallowance of additional depreciation under section 32(1) (iia) of the Act amounting to INR 3, 43,808/- 10. erred in disallowing 50% of the additional depreciation ... claimed under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act, by holding that such claim of 50% of the additional depreciation is not allowable in the immediately succeeding year to which the asset is put to use for less than 180 days. Supermax Personal Care Pvt. Ltd., 11. erred

The Pr CIT Circle 5 (1), Bhopal vs. M/S M.P.Warehousing & Logistic Corporation, Bhopal

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 167/IND/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit, Circle 5(1) M/S Mp Warehousing & Bhopal Logistics Corporation Office Complex, Block-1 Vs. Gautam Nagar Bhopal (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent/ Assessee) Pan: Aadcm7742B Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr-Dr Assessee By Shri Shri S.S. Deshpande Ar Date Of Hearing 12.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.02.2024

Section 35A

details of income as well as investments made by the assessee. 3. Before the Tribunal Ld. DR has submitted that the assessee has claimed additional depreciation u/s 35AD of Rs.26,70,15,797/- and explained that operations of the assessee providing warehouse facility for storage of agricultural produce are eligible