← 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

Rawat Prabhu Prakash Singh Chundawat HUF, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Udaipur

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 691/JODH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT(Sr. D.R)
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)

years. The only exception was in Assessment Year 2014-15, where an addition of Rs.2,48,131/- was made on account of additional depreciation claimed. 2.2 Despite the fact that the income offered by the assessee was accepted and assessments were completed without significant variation, the AO proceeded to initiate

Rawat Prabhu Prakash Singh Chundawat HUF, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Udaipur

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 690/JODH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT(Sr. D.R)
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)

years. The only exception was in Assessment Year 2014-15, where an addition of Rs.2,48,131/- was made on account of additional depreciation claimed. 2.2 Despite the fact that the income offered by the assessee was accepted and assessments were completed without significant variation, the AO proceeded to initiate

Rawat Prabhu Prakash Singh Chundawat HUF, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Udaipur

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 689/JODH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT(Sr. D.R)
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)

years. The only exception was in Assessment Year 2014-15, where an addition of Rs.2,48,131/- was made on account of additional depreciation claimed. 2.2 Despite the fact that the income offered by the assessee was accepted and assessments were completed without significant variation, the AO proceeded to initiate

Rawat Prabhu Prakash Singh Chundawat HUF, Udaipur vs. Dcitl Central Circle-2, Udaipur

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 687/JODH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT(Sr. D.R)
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)

years. The only exception was in Assessment Year 2014-15, where an addition of Rs.2,48,131/- was made on account of additional depreciation claimed. 2.2 Despite the fact that the income offered by the assessee was accepted and assessments were completed without significant variation, the AO proceeded to initiate

DCIT Cir 6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Biostach India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3559/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 349/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) Biostadt India Limited V/S. Dcit 6(1), Mumbai Poonam Chambers, A बिधम Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Wing, 6Th Floor, Dr. A. B. 400020 Road, Worli, Mumbai- 400018 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccb1830G Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri Kirit KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui
Section 115Section 115JSection 14ASection 154Section 250Section 263Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80

moulds and dies put to use during the year. 2. Without prejudice to above, the learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing the additional depreciation @ 20% u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act on moulds and dies if treated as capital expenditure 3. On the facts and in the circumstances ... Accordingly, this ground is allowed and the disallowance of Rs. 46,24,850/- is directed to be deleted. 8. Ground No. 2: Claim of additional depreciation @20% on dyes and moulds, without prejudice to ground No. 1. Since ground No. 1 has been allowed in favour of the assessee, this

Biostadt India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 349/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 349/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) Biostadt India Limited V/S. Dcit 6(1), Mumbai Poonam Chambers, A बिधम Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Wing, 6Th Floor, Dr. A. B. 400020 Road, Worli, Mumbai- 400018 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccb1830G Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri Kirit KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui
Section 115Section 115JSection 14ASection 154Section 250Section 263Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80

moulds and dies put to use during the year. 2. Without prejudice to above, the learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing the additional depreciation @ 20% u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act on moulds and dies if treated as capital expenditure 3. On the facts and in the circumstances ... Accordingly, this ground is allowed and the disallowance of Rs. 46,24,850/- is directed to be deleted. 8. Ground No. 2: Claim of additional depreciation @20% on dyes and moulds, without prejudice to ground No. 1. Since ground No. 1 has been allowed in favour of the assessee, this

DCIT, Central Circle 2(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Ultratech Nathdwara Cement Ltd. (Known As M/S. Binani Cement Ltd.), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 470/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 154Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 801ASection 92C

facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.4,22,98,633/- under the head additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the IT Act in respect of the investment made in plant & machinery of Captive Power Plant, CPP-III without

M/S. Ultratech Nathdwara Cement Ltd.(Formerly Known As M/S. Binani Cement Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 2(2), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 152/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 154Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 801ASection 92C

facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.4,22,98,633/- under the head additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the IT Act in respect of the investment made in plant & machinery of Captive Power Plant, CPP-III without

ACIT, Cir-14(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Ultratech Nathdwara Cement Ltd.(Known As M/S Binani Cement Ltd.), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 611/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 May 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 154Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 801ASection 92C

facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.4,22,98,633/- under the head additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the IT Act in respect of the investment made in plant & machinery of Captive Power Plant, CPP-III without

Binani Cement Ltd., Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T., Central Circle-Xxviii, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1726/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 May 2025AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 154Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 801ASection 92C

facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.4,22,98,633/- under the head additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the IT Act in respect of the investment made in plant & machinery of Captive Power Plant, CPP-III without

M/S. Simero Vitrified P. Ltd., Morbi vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Rajkot

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

ITA 276/RJT/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us Is A Private Limited Company & Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Of Vitrified Tiles. The Return Of Income Has Been E-Filed By The Assessee, On 10/09/2016 For Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17, Reporting Loss Of Rs. 5,68,00,829/-, Which Was Later Revised On 09/03/2018, Declaring Total Loss Of Rs. 13,97,40,413/-, Claiming Investment Allowance U/S 32Ac Of The Income Tax Act. The Case Has Been Selected For Complete Scrutiny (Cass) Specifically To Examine The Followings: 1) Whether Outward Foreign Remittance Is From Disclosed Sources & Appropriate Withholding & Reporting Obligation Have Been Complied With; 2) Whether Investment & Income Relating To Properties Are Duly Disclosed; 3) Whether Receipt Of Foreign Remittance Has Been Correctly Offered For Tax And, 4) Whether Sundry Creditors Are Genuine. 4. The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17 Was Passed By Dcit, Morbi Circle, Morbi, Being The Assessing Officer (Ao), On 21/12/2018, Allowing The Loss Claimed Of Rs. 13,97,40,413/- To Be Carry Forward To Subsequent Years. 2

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32ASection 68

initiated on these amounts for concealment of income. 12 ITA 276/Rjt/2019 (AY 2016-17) SIMERO VITRIFIED P. LTD. iv) Disallowance of additional depreciation of Rs.63,75,068/- claimed u/s 32AC of the Act on electrification of Plant & Machinery worth Rs.4,25,00,454/- must be treated as unexplained expenses

Narke Green Foundation Charitable Institution, Mumbai vs. CIT(Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 1864/MUM/2025[N.A ]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2025

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 119Section 12ASection 143(1)(a)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee is concerned, section 10B (8) is an exemption provision which cannot be compared with claiming an additional depreciation under section 32(1) (ii-a) of the Act. As per the settled position of law, an assessee claiming exemption has to strictly

Ess Kay Fabrication, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward-1(4), Gurgaon

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

ITA 2924/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

therefore, appellate order is against the principles of natural justice and is 4 bad in law. Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in not allowing additional depreciation allowable on the addition of new Plant and Machinery during the year to which assessee is duly eligible under law. Reliance was placed ... on08.09.2011. 9. Learned Authorised Representative further drawn our attention on the decision of Ld. CIT(A) towards additional ground regarding the claim of additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act at the rate of 20% of cost of new machinery acquired and installed during

Crest Speciality Resins Private Limited, Kheda, Gujarat vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(2), Ahmedabad (Now DCIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad), Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for both the years under

ITA 1585/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Amrin Pathan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. P. Srivastava, Sr. D.R
Section 250Section 35Section 40A(2)(b)

allowing depreciation on electrical installation at the rate of 15% as Plant and Machinery despite the fact that the learned CIT(A) has allowed additional depreciation on the same. 13) The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in fact in not appreciating the fact that

Crest Speciality Resins Private Limited, Kheda, Gujarat vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(2), Ahmedabad (Now DCIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad), Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for both the years under consideration

ITA 1583/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Amrin Pathan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. P. Srivastava, Sr. D.R
Section 250Section 35Section 40A(2)(b)

allowing depreciation on electrical installation at the rate of 15% as Plant and Machinery despite the fact that the learned CIT(A) has allowed additional depreciation on the same. 13) The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in fact in not appreciating the fact that

Baghmari Tea Company Limited., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-4(1), Kolkata.

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

ITA 937/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Rakesh Mishra]

Section 139(1)Section 14ASection 80I

disallowed a sum of Rs. 94,889 u/s 14A read with rule 8D. Disallowed depreciation including Additional depreciation of an aggregate sum of Rs. 13,79,300/- The claim of the assessee for education u/s 80IE in relation to the substantial Expansion of its undertaking during the year

Raniwala Jewellers Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT/DCIT Cir-6, Jpr, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 10/JPR/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 May 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. Nikhilesh Kataria, C.A., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Ld. DR
Section 10BSection 10B(8)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80J

sufficed 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

Carborundum Universal Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Ltu-1, Chennai

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

ITA 2868/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs.Samantha Mullamudi
Section 115JSection 14ASection 8D(2)(ii)

scheme for setting up manufacturing facility in Uttarkhand. The AO, not being satisfied with the reply furnished by the assessee that subsidy should be additional depreciation, has reduced capital subsidy of Rs.30 lakhs from actual cost of plant & machinery installed and worked out to Rs.10,50,000/-. On appeal

Carborundum Universal Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Ltu-1, Chennai

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

ITA 2867/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs.Samantha Mullamudi
Section 115JSection 14ASection 8D(2)(ii)

scheme for setting up manufacturing facility in Uttarkhand. The AO, not being satisfied with the reply furnished by the assessee that subsidy should be additional depreciation, has reduced capital subsidy of Rs.30 lakhs from actual cost of plant & machinery installed and worked out to Rs.10,50,000/-. On appeal

Carborundum Universal Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Ltu-1, Chennai

ITA 2866/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.2865, 2866, 2867 & 2868/Chny/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2018-19) M/S. Carborundum Universal Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Limited, No. 43, Vi Floor, Parry House Moore Street,Chennai Gpo Parrys, – 600 001. Pan: Aaacc-2474-P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Large Taxpayer Unit-1, Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, Advocate प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mrs.Samantha Mullamudi, Addl.Cit सुनवाईकी तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 05.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)]All Dated10.09.2024 For Assessment Years 2010-11, 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2018-19.Since The Facts & Issues Are Common In These Appeals, They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs.Samantha Mullamudi
Section 115JSection 14ASection 8D(2)(ii)

satisfied with the reply furnished by the assessee that subsidy should be reduced from cost of building as the same is not eligible for additional depreciation, has reduced capital subsidy of Rs.30 lakhs from actual cost of plant & machinery installed and worked out to Rs.10,50,000/-. On appeal