← All Phrases

“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
92
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
73
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
62
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
49
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
48
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

Fourrts (India Labs Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT (OSD) Corporate Circle 2, Chennai

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

ITA 1176/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1176/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Fourrts (India) Labs Pvt. Ltd., Assistant Commissioner Of Plot No.1, Annai Indira Nagar, V. Income Tax (Osd), Okkiyam Thoraipakkam, Corporate Range -2, Chennai – 600 097. Chennai. [Pan: Aaacf-0467-F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R.S. Devaguru, Advocate : Shri. P.M. Senthil Kumar, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. R.S. Devaguru, Advocate
Section 115Section 32Section 35(2)

support the claim of the appellant. 10. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 6 had erred in rejecting the claim of appellant for additional depreciation amounting to Rs.3,82,489/-. 11. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 6 relied only on the order of assessing officer and failed to apply ... judgment in the case of Century Enka, ITA 560/Kol./2010, wherein it was clearly ruled that the claim of balance 50% of additional depreciation cannot be denied invoking second proviso to Section 32(i)(ii) of the Act. 12. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 6 was wrong to have