← 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

Lord Krishna Rice Mills, Karnal vs. ITO, Ward-2, Karnal

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

ITA 9009/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15 Lord Krishna Rice Mills, Vs Ito, C/O S.B. Gupta, Advocate, Ward-2, 3/93, Mall Road, Karnal. Karnal, Haryana. Pan : Aabfl5926H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mrs. Shivani Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.03.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27Th September, 2019 Of The Cit(A), Karnal, Relating To The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm & Derives Income From Manufacturing & Trading Of Rice By Husking Of Paddy & Sales Thereof. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 25Th September, 2013 Declaring An Income Of Rs.3,41,830/-. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 15Th February, 2016 Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.7,65,330/- Wherein He Made Certain Additions. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee Has Claimed Additional Depreciation On Purchase Of Machinery Of Rs.1,17,14,501/-. The Claim Of The Assessee For Additional Depreciation Was Rejected By The Ao Keeping In View Of The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of M/S Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. Cit Reported In 284 Itr 323, Since The Said Additional Depreciation Was Not Claimed By The Assessee Either In The Original Return Or Through The Revised Return.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Shivani Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 254Section 32(1)

total income of the assessee at Rs.7,65,330/- wherein he made certain additions. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee has claimed additional depreciation on purchase of machinery of Rs.1,17,14,501/-. The claim of the assessee for additional depreciation was rejected by the AO keeping ... Supreme Court in the case of M/s Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 284 ITR 323, since the said additional depreciation was not claimed by the assessee either in the original return or through the revised return. 3. Before the CIT(A), apart from challenging the other additions

Daawat Foods Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA

ITA 4158/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) & Daawat Foods Ltd., Vs. Acit, Unit No.134, 1St Floor, Central Circle – 19, Rectangle I, New Delhi Saket District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110 017 Pan No. Aaccd 3698 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. Ms. Deepashree Rao, C.A. Shri Vibhu Gupta, C.A. Revenue By Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Cit-D.R Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/01/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 28.03.2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-Xxxiii, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09. Ita Nos.4157 & 4158/Del/2013 Daawat Foods Ltd Vs. Acit A.Y. 2007-08 & 2008-09 2 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under:

Section 132Section 142Section 143(1)Section 153A

personal expense and thereby disallowing the same and CIT(A) has also erred in upholding the same. Addition on account of disallowance of additional depreciation 12. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the A.O./CIT(A) has erred ... facts in ITA Nos.4157 & 4158/Del/2013 Daawat Foods Ltd vs. ACIT A.Y. 2007-08 & 2008-09 7 confirming an addition on account of disallowance of additional depreciation on plant and machinery. Disallowance of expenses on account of Non-Deduction and Short-Deduction of TDS 13. That CIT(A), in view

Daawat Foods Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA

ITA 4157/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) & Daawat Foods Ltd., Vs. Acit, Unit No.134, 1St Floor, Central Circle – 19, Rectangle I, New Delhi Saket District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110 017 Pan No. Aaccd 3698 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. Ms. Deepashree Rao, C.A. Shri Vibhu Gupta, C.A. Revenue By Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Cit-D.R Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/01/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 28.03.2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-Xxxiii, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09. Ita Nos.4157 & 4158/Del/2013 Daawat Foods Ltd Vs. Acit A.Y. 2007-08 & 2008-09 2 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under:

Section 132Section 142Section 143(1)Section 153A

personal expense and thereby disallowing the same and CIT(A) has also erred in upholding the same. Addition on account of disallowance of additional depreciation 12. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the A.O./CIT(A) has erred ... facts in ITA Nos.4157 & 4158/Del/2013 Daawat Foods Ltd vs. ACIT A.Y. 2007-08 & 2008-09 7 confirming an addition on account of disallowance of additional depreciation on plant and machinery. Disallowance of expenses on account of Non-Deduction and Short-Deduction of TDS 13. That CIT(A), in view