“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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Mrf Limited, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 910/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

towards litigation and Related disputes ₹ 21,08,19,169 (ii) Disallowance of depreciation claimed on Retention money ₹ 68,42,373 payable (iii) Disallowance of additional depreciation Claimed on retention ₹ 1,49,77,463 money payable (iv) Disallowance of expenditure incurred On clubs ₹ 36,92,352 ------------------- Revised Assessed Income ... account and expenditure on revenue account by the Respondent to the vendors is contingent in nature and is to be disallowed; and accordingly disallowed additional depreciation claimed on the retention money on capital account amounting to ₹1,49,77,463/- (20% of ₹7,48,87,316). 5. Aggrieved, the assessee

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Mrf Limited, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 909/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

M/S T vs. Motor Company Limited, Chennaivs.ACIT Corporate Circle 3 (1), Chennai

ITA 2405/CHNY/2019[2014-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Aug 2025AY 2014-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 92C(2)

regarding the action of Ld. CIT(A) in deleting an addition of Rs.16,71,32,882/- made by the Ld.AO on claim of additional depreciation. As per the brief factual matrix, the Ld.AO noted that the assessee had claimed additional depreciation qua remainder amount which could not be claimed ... earlier year. The Ld.AO held that additional depreciation is allowable only in respect of plant and machinery purchased and put to use in a year. The Ld.AO further held that assessee's reliance upon a favourable decision in its favour delivered by this tribunal for AY-2011-12 cannot

Jubilant Foodworks Limited, Noida vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Noida

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

ITA 184/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2022-23 Jubilant Food Works Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Limited Plot No. 1A Sector Income Tax, Circle – 5 (1) 16 A Gautam Buddha Nagar (1), Noida Uttar Pradesh 201301 Pan No. Aabcd 1821 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. K M Gupta, Advocate Ms. Shruti Khimata, Ca Respondent By Sh. Jitender Singh, Cit Dr

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 80Section 80ASection 80J

suffice to reproduce para 2 of the impugned order whereby action of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was held to be justified in allowing 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 Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shivanand Electronics

Victoria Educational Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward-3, Chennai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 946/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:946/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Victoria Educational Trust, Ito, 62, 6Th Street, Vs. Exemptions Ward 3, S.R.P.Colony, Chennai. Peravallur, Chennai – 600 082. [Pan:Aabtv-0115-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Kumar Chandan, J.C.I.T.

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Kumar Chandan, J.C.I.T

Section 11Section 12(1)(ac)Section 12ASection 143(1)

suffice to reproduce para 2 of the impugned order whereby action of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was held to be justified in allowing 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 Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shivanand Electronics

Hira Power & Steels Limited, Raipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Raipur

In the result ground no 6 of the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 233/RPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.233/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Hira Power & Steels Limited 557, Urla Industrial Area, Urla Industrial Complex, Raipur (C.G.)-493 221 Pan: Aabcj0138Q ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 14A

arbitrary and not justified. 5. Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs.8,06,670/- made by the A.O on account of addition depreciation claimed by the appellant. The disallowance made by the A.O and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is arbitrary, illegal and not justified ... appeal No.3 raised by the assessee is allowed. Ground of appeal No.5 12. pertains to the disallowance of Rs.8,06,670/- on account of additional depreciation claimed by the assessee as per Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. 13. The Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC on this issue has held

Heena Parthiv Thakkar, Ahmedabad vs. The ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru/the ITO, Ward-1(2)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2073/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalheena Parthiv Thakkar, Vs. Adit, Cpc, 38, Tulsi Co-Op. Hos. Soc. Ltd. Bengaluru/ Sagar Bungalow, Gulab Tower Income Tax Officer, Road, Sola Road, Thaltej, Ward-1(2)(3), Ahmedabad-380061. Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Makwana, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(iia)

against that of Rs.5,26,408/- shown in the return of income filed. 2. The Ld.CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in not granting additional depreciation of Rs.12,72,500/- to which the appellant is eligible and entitled. 3. The Ld.CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in not granting deduction ... Rs.12,72,500/- as additional depreciation in terms of Explanation 5 to Sec. 32(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Heena P Thakkar Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2020-21 - 2– 4. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal on or before

Beekay Steel Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle 2(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 346/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jul 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Beekay Steel Industries Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), C/O Subash Agarwal & Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, Associates, Advocates, Siddha 110, Shantipally, Vs. Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite Kolkata-700107, West Bengal 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcb3205A Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, DR

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 68

Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) for the reason of large commission expenses and low net profit, claim of depreciation at higher rates and higher additional depreciation. The statutory notices along with questionnaire were issued and duly served upon the assessee. During the impugned financial year, the assessee had issued equity

Aspee Sons, Solan vs. Income Tax Officer, Parwanoo

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

ITA 1167/CHANDI/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80I

ineligible profits from insurance claims and foreign exchange fluctuation not derived from manufacturing activity, and (ii) Rs. 9,86,497/- for excess deduction on additional depreciation. Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. While the assessee contested the depreciation disallowance and succeeded

Kreate Konnect E Solutions Private Limited, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1950/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-21 Kcreate Konnect E Solutions Dy. Cit, Cir.1(1)(1) Private Limited Vs. Vadodara. 291M 2Bd Floor, Green Villa-11 B/H. Abs Tower Old Padra Road Vadodara Pan : Aagck 1493 C (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Jigar Adhyaru, Ar Assessee By : Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Chennai [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Dated 18.09.2024, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2020– 21, Whereby The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Intimation Issued Under Section 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] Dated 18.12.2021 Was Dismissed.

For Appellant: Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)

declaration that Form 10-IC is intended to record. • The computation of total income filed along with the return excluded all disallowable deductions, including additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia), deductions under sections 10AA, 35(1)(ii), etc., thereby complying with the conditions of sub-section (2) of section

M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-8(1), Ltu-II, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 601/CHNY/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)(iia)

produced the details called for and thereafter, the AO determined the income of the assessee at Rs.328,87,81,902/-, after inter alia disallowing additional depreciation to the extent of Rs.9,53,49,197/- which was claimed u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act. Thereafter, the AO issued notice u/s.148 ... dated 31.03.2017 after expiry of four (4) years, reopening the assessment, for the reasons that additional depreciation could not be allowed to the assessee on account of electrical installations, data processing equipment & exchange fluctuation loss. Thereafter, the reassessment was completed u/s 147/143(3) of the Act after making further disallowance

Makson Pharmaceuticals(India) Private Limited, Surendranagar vs. Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1017/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri M J Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

following: i. Being depreciation allowed to the assessee on WDV of the assets as at the beginning of the year without reducing the additional depreciation to the extent of 50% thereof carried forward from the preceding year, which the assessee was required as per law to claim in this year ... preceding year. As per the Ld. PCIT, the assessee ought to have first reduced the WDV of the assets with the balance 50% additional depreciation not claimed in the preceding year and on the reduced WDV, the assessee ought to have been allowed claim of depreciation. While the assessee

Vir Alloys and Steel Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle 11(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, with directions as aforesaid

ITA 2557/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Akhilesh Sindhu

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

order dated 11.10.2018 passed under Section 147 disallowed order dated 11.10.2018 passed under Section 147 disallowed order dated 11.10.2018 passed under Section 147 disallowed additional depreciation of ₹37,41,179/-, reducing the ra additional depreciation of , reducing the rate from the 30% claimed by the assessee ... depreciation claimed @ 30% by allowed @ 15% instead of depreciation claimed @ 30% by allowed @ 15% instead of depreciation claimed @ 30% by the assessee and additional depreciation of Rs. 37,41,179 the assessee and additional depreciation of Rs. 37,41,179 the assessee and additional depreciation

Vir Alloys and Steel Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle 11(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, with directions as aforesaid

ITA 2489/MUM/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Akhilesh Sindhu

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

ACIT 531, Mumbai vs. Teleperformance Global Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

ITA 1484/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(3)Section 250Section 263

also like to state that SBPO has not claimed depreciation at rates higher than what is prescribed under the Income Tax Act, 1961 or additional depreciation during the year under consideration. The details of additions to fixed assets are attached herewith as Annexure 2. The assessee has submitted the statement

Teleperformance Global Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Additional-Joint-Deputy-Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-Income Tax Officer, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

ITA 1452/MUM/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(3)Section 250Section 263

Teleperformance Global Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Additional-Joint-Deputy-Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-Ncome Tax Officer, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

ITA 1451/MUM/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(3)Section 250Section 263

Teleperformance Global Services P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Pr. CIT -5, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

ITA 977/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(3)Section 250Section 263

ACIT, Ltu-2, Chennai vs. Ashok Leyland Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 2618/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.A. Sasikumar, CIT

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

above decision (supra), we dismiss this ground raised by the Revenue. 5. Ground No. 4 is noted to be against the disallowance of additional depreciation of Rs.9,65,562/- claimed by the assessee u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act in relation to energy saving devices falling under the block ... onset, the Ld. AR pointed out that, out of the total claim, sum of Rs.13,996/- relates to additional depreciation claimed in respect of energy saving devices under the 100% block, which the assessee does not wish to press and therefore we confirm the disallowance to the extent of Rs.13

Ashok Leyland Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

ITA 2330/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2330/Chny/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd., 1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aaaca 4651 L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Acit, Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2618/Chny/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Acit, Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Chennai. V. M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd., 1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aaaca 4651 L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By : Mr.R. Vijayaraghavan, Adv. & Mr.Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Adv. Department By : Mr.A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2025

For Appellant: Mr.R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.A. Sasikumar, CIT

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A