“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

M/S Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu)-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 575/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm)

Section 144ASection 32ASection 35Section 37(1)Section 80I

second proviso to section 32(1), we must give the same interpretation. 241. We further note that the issue relating to availability of additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) wherein the phrase used is "acquired and installed after the 31st day of March" has been subject matter of litigation ... manufacture, it cannot be held that it had been installed. Mere purchasing or shifting it to factory premises is not enough. Assessee had claimed additional depreciation @ 10%, as the P&M had worked for a period less than one year. It is a common phenomenon that in big projects, installation

The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Ltd., Surat

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 405/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 32(1)(iia)

learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming that the appellant is not eligible for additional depreciation amounting to Rs.49,52,66,000/- as per section 32(1)(iia) of the IT Act on the flimsy ground that no details were submitted ... show that conditions for claiming additional depreciations were satisfied. I.T.A Nos. 330 & 331/Ahd/2023 and Ors. A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19 Page No 4 Dakshin Gujarat Vij. Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT 2.1 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that all the conditions stated to have been

The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Ltd., Surat

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 404/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 32(1)(iia)

Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Limited, Surat vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 331/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 32(1)(iia)

Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Limited, Surat vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 330/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 32(1)(iia)

ACIT 1(1), Mumbai vs. Blue Star Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned AO is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5551/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Blue Star Ltd. Acit -1(1) Kasturi Building, Room No.579, Mohan T. Advani Chownk, Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, J. Tata Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacb4487D Blue Star Ltd. Acit -1(1) Kasturi Building, Room No.579, Mohan T. Advani Chownk, Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, J. Tata Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Gunjan Kakkad, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dilip K. Shah, DR

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 40Section 43B

treated as withdrawn. 4. In the instant Assessment Year, the appellant has claimed total depreciation of Rs. 17,02,49,797/-, which includes additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) on eligible assets of Rs. 2,10,92040/-. The said additional depreciation has been claimed on eligible assets installed ... appellant during the Previous Year 2006-07 relevant to the instant Assessment Year. However, claim for balance 10% additional depreciation in respect of eligible assets of Rs. 9,25,07,148/- installed and put to use for less than 180 days in the Previous Year 2005-06 was advertently

Blue Star Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned AO is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4793/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Gunjan Kakkad, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dilip K. Shah, DR

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 40Section 43B

M/S Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd., Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT-4, Kolkata

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1004/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263

justified and grossly erred in referring the matter to the A.O. to verify whether the appellant is eligible for additional depreciation u/s 32(l)(iia) of Rs. 4,34,49,784/- on leased windmills engaged in generation of power. 8. That on the facts and in the circumstances ... Profit u/s 115JB (Refer notice u/s115TB u/s 142(1) dated 14-09-2016) 7. Deduction of Only balance 10% Reply 160 and Not prejudicial additional depreciation is dated 06- balance 10% 180 to the interest claimed u/s 32(l)(iia) on 10-2015 of revenue, refer Additional assets acquired

A R Industries, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 175/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraa. R. Industries Vs. Dcit Khasra No. 52/7, Plot No.6 Cpc Village, Pehaladpur, Bengaluru New Delhi -110 042 Pan No. Aaofa 2476 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Amit Goel, C.A. & Shri Pranav Yadav, Adv. Revenue By Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 22.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.01.2024

Section 143(1)Section 80I

reproduce paragraph 2 of the impugned order whereby action of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was held to be justified in allowing the additional depreciation as claimed by the respondent- assessee herein "Additional depreciation is denied to the assessee on the ground that the assessee has failed to furnish form ... Admittedly, form 3AA was submitted during the course of assessment proceedings and it is not in dispute that the assessee is entitled to the additional depreciation. In these circumstances, in the light of the judgment of this court in the case of CIT v. Shivanand Electronics reported

Eureka Outsourcing Solutions Pvt Ltd, Thane vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle (1), Thane

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

ITA 2845/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Eureka Outsourcing Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Circle (1) 5Th Floor, High Street Cum Highland Thane Corporate Centre, Kapurbawadi, Vs. Thane-400 607

For Appellant: Shri Vijaykumar S. BiyaniFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Choughule

Section 143(3)Section 197Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(2)(b)

CASS for verifying “high ratio of refund to TDS, certificate u/s. 197 for ‘nil’ or lower deduction of TDS, depreciation claimed at higher rate/higher additional depreciation claimed, low income shown by large contractors, mismatch in sales turnover reported in audit report and ITR and mismatch in amount paid to related

D.C.I.T., Circle-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Birla Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross-objection of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1964/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........…..........................…..…..... Respondent Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] C.O. 39/Kol/2019 (A/O I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........….....................…..…..... Cross-Objector Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] Vs Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal By The Revenue & The Corresponding Cross Objections By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 30.05.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). First, We Take Up Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.1964/Kol/2019. I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 & C.O. 39/Kol/2019 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 80I

facts and circumstances of the case as well as in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by allowing the claim of balance additional depreciation of Rs. 12,19,30,258/-. 7. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case as well ... hereby dismissed. 5. Ground No.6 – Vide Ground No.6, the revenue has assailed the order of the CIT(A) in allowing the claim of balance additional depreciation of Rs.12,19,30,258/-. 6. The brief facts relating to the issue are that the assessee purchased and installed new plant and machinery

The Tata Power Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 753/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Ms. Padmavathy.Sआअसं.753/मुं/2013 (िन.व. 2008-09) The Tata Power Co. Ltd. Corporate Center, Block ‘B’, 5Th Floor, 34, Sant Thukaram Road, Carnak Bunder, Mumbai 400 009. Pan: Aaact-0054-A ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range 2(3), Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ....."ितवादी/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi with Shri Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar&

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

view of the statement made by ld. Counsel for the assessee, ground No.8 of appeal is dismissed as not pressed. Ground No.9: Disallowance of addition depreciation Rs.28,13,41,382/- claimed u/s. 32(1)(iia) of the Act : 26. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee ... claimed additional depreciation u/s. 32(1)(iia) of the Act r.w. Rule 5(1A) on Plant and Machinery. The Assessing Officer disallowed assessee’s claim of additional depreciation by following the assessment order for Assessment Year 2006-07. In Assessment Year 2006-07 the assessee carried the issue in appeal

M/S. Deepak Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 6(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 467/KOL/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234CSection 36(1)(va)Section 43(1)Section 43A

less than 180 days. Accordingly, the assessee claimed depreciation @ 10% being 50% of normal rate of depreciation. During the year, the assessee claimed 10% additional depreciation on the ground that the assessee had claimed only 50% depreciation in FY 2012- 13 in terms of proviso to Section ... been decided in favour of the assessee. 15. After hearing the rival parties and perusing the material on record, we note that 4the additional depreciation has been denied by the AO on the ground that there was no provision in the Statute granting additional depreciation to the assessee which

M/S. Deepak Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-6(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 466/KOL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Jan 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234CSection 36(1)(va)Section 43(1)Section 43A

Simbhaoli Power Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT Ghaziabad, New Delhi

ITA 4620/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

For Appellant: Shri Anshul Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Gupta, CIT- DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)Section 69C

Large share premium received during the year. (iv) Large other expenses claimed in the Profit & Loss A/c (v) Depreciation claimed at higher rates/Higher additional depreciation claimed (vi) Large business loss set off against other heads of income. (vii) Mismatch in sales turnover reported in Audit Report and ITR. (viii) Mismatch

Asst CIT (Ltu) 1, Mumbai vs. Grasim Industries Limited (As A Successor to Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1248/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Ms. A. Alankrutha, Sr. DR

Section 10BSection 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 37Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

falling u/s. 10B and directing to reduce interest income (Department ground is wrongly worded, allocation of HO expenses were to 80IA Unit) 9 Allowing additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) in the succeeding assessment year where the assets were put to use for less than 180 days in relevant previous

Grasim Industries Limited (As A Successor to Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1065/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Ms. A. Alankrutha, Sr. DR

Section 10BSection 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 37Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

Richa & Co., Delhi vs. JCIT, Special Range- 17, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed partly with

ITA 3341/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaricha & Co. Vs. Jcit B-34, Phase-1, Special Range-17, Mayapuri Industrial Area, New Delhi. Delhi. Pan No. Aaafr0114L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 263Section 40

Report and ITR”. Later the reasons were revised to: I. Large specified domestic transaction(s) (FORM 3 CEB). II. Depreciation claimed at higher rates/higher additional depreciation claimed. III. Mismatch in sales turnover reported in Audit Report and ITR. IV. Delayed payment of tax and return filed late. 3 V. Large ... scrutiny reasons had been revised as under: 1. Large specified domestic transaction(s) (Form 3 CEB). 2. Depreciation claimed at higher rates/higher additional depreciation claimed. 3. Mismatch in sales turnover reported in Audit Report and ITR. 4. Delayed payment of tax and return filed late. 5. Large other expenses claimed

Atc Global Logistics Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2595/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 14A

Income Tax Act. In view of these facts, we are of the considered view that the AO is not correct in adding the additional depreciation as per the Income Tax Act to the book profits computed under section 115JB of the Act. This contention of the assessee is allowed

DCIT- CC - 7(3), Mumbai vs. Acg Associated Capsules Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, no question of law arises

ITA 3283/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved/For Respondent: Shri Akhtar Hussain Ansari

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 92C

grounds: 1 "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) justified in allowing the additional depreciation of Rs. 83,97,933/- to the assessee for the F.Y. 2011-12 despite the fact that the explicit provision for the deduction ... assessee in the present case is engaged in the manufacturing of empty hard gelatin capsules of various sizes and had claimed 50% of the additional depreciation for plant and machinery which was purchased and put to use for less than 180 days during the financial year