“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

Ipca Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 3267/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR

Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

justified in allowing something which is not permitted by law, to be specific in the case under consideration, allowing the claim of additional depreciation of Rs. 1,23,37,420/ on the assets acquired and installed during the FY 2006-07 (immediately preceding FY to the current FY under consideration ... ignoring the express provisions of section 32(1)(iia) of the Act which specifically stats that additional depreciation shall be allowed only on assets acquired and installed during the previous year. 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Ipca Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT (Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 8120/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR

Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

Ipca Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 8084/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR

Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

ACIT Cen Cir 13, Mumbai vs. Ipca Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 7511/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR

Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

Faza Three Autofad Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-6(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1465/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkarni

hearing to the appellant. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of depreciation and additional depreciation amounting to Rs. 42,79,565/- by applying the provisions of S. 43A of the Act. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that

Faza Three Autofad Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-6(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1463/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkarni

Atos It Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 226/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, CAFor Respondent: Shri Bijoy Kumar Panda, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

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

income tax by claiming extra depreciation on enhanced cost. In order to establish aforesaid fact, it has to be established that apart from claiming additional depreciation on enhanced cost, there is other main purpose for acquiring the asset i.e. goodwill in question. The AO in the instant case wrongly invoked

DCIT Circle- 1, Thane vs. M/S Everest Industries Ltd, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly

ITA 554/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh Chaitanya Joshi &For Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 43B

circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was not justified & grossly erred in confirming the action of the A.O. in not allowing additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) amounting to Rs.17,66,22,964/- in respect of new Plant & Machinery acquired and installed after 31.03.2005 but before

Everest Industrial Ltd., Noida vs. Dy CIT Circle-1, Thane

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly

ITA 7791/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh Chaitanya Joshi &For Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 43B

M/S. Bosch Limited, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 475/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32ASection 35

Cosmo Films Ltd. (2012) 13 ITR (Trib) 340. In that case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was dealing with the issue of allowability of balance additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) in the second year in respect of assets acquired and installed in latter half of the first ... No.475/Bang/2020 Page 5 of 12 year of acquisition. While on this, we wish to submit that Sec 32(1)(iia) grants additional depreciation in respect of assets acquired and installed during the relevant previous year. Having regard to the language contained therein, in that case, the AO denied additional depreciation

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

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 655/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Asian Paints Ltd., V. Addl. Cit – Ltu – 2 6A, Shantinagar 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre Santacruz (East) Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400005 Mumbai – 400055 Pan: Aaaca3622K (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Cit – Ltu – 2 V. M/S. Asian Paints Ltd., Centre-1, 29Th Floor 6A, Shantinagar World Trade Centre Santacruz (East) Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400005 Mumbai – 400055 Pan: Aaaca3622K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Das

Section 115OSection 14A

circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing Rs. 2,67,89,907/-on account of balance 10% additional depreciation on additions made in A.Y. 2010-11, without appreciating the facts of the case. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances ... Ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, ground raised by the revenue is dismissed. 33. With regard to Ground No. 4 which is in respect of Balance 10% additional depreciation on addition made in earlier year, Ld. AR submitted that this issue is squarely covered in assessee’s own case for A.Y.2010-11 and Coordinate

Toyota Boshoku Automotive India Private Limited, Ramanagaram vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Circle-2, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 362/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Hon’Ble & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Ms. Hirali Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 92D

considered as capital in nature. 18. Without prejudice to the above, the Learned AO/ Hon'ble DRP erred in not allowing the consequential additional depreciation under section 32(iia) of the Act for the expenses treated as capital expenditure for AY 2016-17. 19. Without prejudice to the above

M/S Te Connectivity India Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Circle-1, Bengaluru

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

ITA 2680/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Sumeet Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.S. Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 92

This ground is allowed in favour of the assessee. Corporate tax issues 53. The assessee has raised ground Nos.11 to 18 regarding depreciation and additional depreciation as follows:- “11. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AO/ learned Dispute Resolution Panel (learned DRP') has erred ... business during the year under consideration. 13. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AO/learned DRP has erred in disallowing additional depreciation amounting to INR 2,18,20,290/- claimed by the Appellant on additions made to the 'plant and machinery' block of assets during

M/S. Time Technoplast Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-3, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 876/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Time Technoplast Limited V. Pr.Cit -3 2Nd Floor, 55 Corporate Avenue Room No. 612, 6Th Floor Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (E) Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai- 400072 M.K. Road Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaact2783J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Kabra Department By : Shri Rajesh Damor

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav KabraFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Damor

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

into this difference. We have also examined the yearwise details of plant & machinery filed by the assessee along with details of addition, deletion, depreciation, additional depreciation and net WDV yearwise and also the findings of the order of Ld. CIT(A) that no corroborative evidences were brought on records

M/S. Syngene International Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range- 6, Bangalore

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

ITA 148/BANG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 10ASection 10BSection 14ASection 250Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80

fact in not allowing the alternative claim of deduction under section 80-IB(SA) of the Act. 4. Disallowance of claim for additional depreciation made under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act 4.1 The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not allowing the additional ... Appellant's submission on being engaged in the business of manufacture, has erred in law and on facts, in denying the claim of additional depreciation merely stating that relevant details in respect of the claim were not furnished. 4.3 The Learned CIT (A) has failed to take note

Tata International Ltd ( for Erstwhile Bachi Shoes Ltd), Vellore vs. ACIT Circle 1, Vellore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1523/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Tata International Limited V. Acit – Circle – 1 {Erstwhile Bachi Shoes Ltd} No.2, 2Nd Floor No. 147, Sidco Industrial Estate Central Revenue Building Sipcot, Ranipet – 632403 Barracks Cross Street Officers Line, Vellore -632001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Aastha Shah Department By : Shri Rajesh Damor Date Of Hearing : 02.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2022 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman (Am) 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–13, Chennai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 05.03.2018 For The A.Y. 2013-14. 2. Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds In Its Appeal: - “The Appellant Objects To The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)'S Order Dismissing The Appeal Against The Assessment Order, For 2013-14 Aly I) Omitting To Reduce The Adjustments Of Rs. 5,69,560 U/S 145A As Per Letter Dated 25.2.2016;

For Appellant: Ms. Aastha ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Damor

Section 145ASection 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40

ought to have followed the binding decisions of the Madras High Court directly on this issue of carry forward of balance Additional Depreciation u/s 32(1)(ii) in CIT vs T.P. Textiles private ltd. 394 ITR 483 (Mad) 3 M/s. Tata International Limited 8. The CIT(A) omitted to decide

M/S Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 2922/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sri. V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 35A

that the old installed capacity continued at all point of time. 14. The AO, however, allowed depreciation at 15% + 20% additional depreciation as per the provisions of Sec.32 of the Act in both the AY 2013-14 & 2014-15. 15. Aggrieved by the order of the AO denying benefit

M/S Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 2921/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sri. V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 35A

Asian Electronics Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed and revenue is allowed

ITA 4804/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt Shailaja Rai

Section 115Section 115JSection 14A

039/made while computing “book profit” for the purpose of section 115JB of the Act should be deleted. 5. PART DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION AND ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION a) The CIT(A) has erred in confirming part of disallowances made by the AO with regard to the normal and additional depreciation on various ... assets used for the purpose of the business of the appellant. b) The appellant respectfully submits that all the assets on which normal and additional depreciation have been claimed are owned by the appellant and have been used for the business of the appellant. The said assets are covered within

DCIT 3(1), Mumbai vs. Asian Electronics Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed and revenue is allowed

ITA 4770/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt Shailaja Rai

Section 115Section 115JSection 14A