← All Phrases

“block of assets”

DepreciationSection 2(11)Section 2(11)848 judgments

The decision most relied on for block of assets is CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. (383 ITR 217), cited in 203 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on block of assets

CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Ltd.
383 ITR 217 · 2016 · Supreme Court
203
citing judgments

Subsidies and excise duty refunds that are accounted for in the Profit and Loss account are revenue in nature, form part of business income, and are eligible for deductions under Section 80IB/80IC. Such receipts cannot be reduced from the block of assets for depreciation calculation.

CIT v. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd.
341 ITR 467 · 2012 · High Court
108
citing judgments

The Legislature abolished terminal depreciation under section 32(1)(iii) and the taxing of balancing charge under section 41(2), replacing these provisions with the requirement to reduce sale proceeds of depreciable assets from the block of assets.

CIT, Panji v. Dempo Company Limited
74 Taxmann.com 15 · 2016 · Supreme Court
62
citing judgments

The 20% tax rate under Section 112 applies to capital gains arising from the transfer of a depreciable asset, even if it is deemed a short-term capital gain under Section 50, provided the asset was held for more than 36 months. The fiction created by Section 50 for treating such gains as short-term does not alter the long-term nature of the asset for applying the tax rate under Section 112.

CIT v. Raj Pal Bhatia
333 ITR 315 · 2011 · High Court
54
citing judgments

A statement recorded under Section 132(4) during a search operation is not considered "books of account," "documents," or "assets found or seized" for the purpose of initiating search assessments under Chapter XIVB (e.g., Section 158BD or 153C). Such a statement is created during the search and cannot solely form the basis for assessment without other incriminating material found.

Sharp Business System v. CIT
254 CTR 233 · 2012 · High Court
50
citing judgments

Depreciation is allowable on a non-compete fee as it constitutes an intangible asset, even if the right acquired cannot be transferred, provided it is treated as part of a block of assets.

341 ITR 467 (Del) (3) ACIT v. S.K. Patel Family Trust
38 SOT 208 · 2010 · ITAT
34
citing judgments

Depreciation on a building used for business purposes should be allowed following the rule of consistency if it was allowed in earlier assessment orders and the Assessing Officer raised no doubts about its use.

(1) CIT v. Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd.
187 Taxmann 111 · 2010 · High Court
25
citing judgments

Depreciation must be allowed on the entire block of assets as defined in Section 2(11) of the Income-tax Act, and individual assets of each unit cannot be considered separately for this purpose.

60 Taxman 412 (SC) II. DIT v. HSBC Asset Management (I)(P) Ltd.
47 Taxmann.com 286 · 2014 · High Court
23
citing judgments

Depreciation on an asset forming part of a block of assets must be allowed in subsequent years if it was allowed in an earlier year. The opening written down value in a year cannot be disputed if it was correctly carried forward.

Judgments citing block of assets

Coromandel International Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 738/HYD/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Mar 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.738/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year:2015-16) Coromandel International Vs. Dcit, Limited, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aaacc7852K (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) करदाताका""त"न"ध"व/ : Shri Sp Chidambaram, Advocate Assessee Represented By राज"वका""त"न"ध"व/ : Ms. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr Department Represented By सुनवाईसमा"तहोनेक""त"थ/ : 02/03/2026 Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख/ : 18/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Coromandel International Limited (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 24/02/2025 For The Assessment Year (“A.Y.”) 2015-16. Page 1 Of 17 Coromandel International Limited Vs. Dcit 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 250Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35

formed part of the block of intangible assets and no Written Down Value was determined. It was further contended that depreciation under the block of assets system cannot be allowed in isolation without determining the foundational components of the block and therefore the claim of the assessee deserves ... power, such percentage on the actual cost thereof to the assessee as may be prescribed] (ii) 70[in the case of any block of assets, such percentage on the written down value thereof as may be prescribed:] 11. On perusal of above, it is abundantly clear that under this statutory

Apcotex Industries Limited, Raigarh vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 15(1)(1), Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assesse stands partly allowed

ITA 6023/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 35

upholding disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 6,92,248/- on the office premises without appreciating that the office premises was part of the block of assets and used for business and therefore depreciation ought to have been allowed. 3. The Appellant craves the leave to add, amend, alter and/or delete ... assessee’s business during the relevant year. 6.2. The Ld.AR submitted that the said immovable properties, being buildings, formed part of the block of assets. It was contended that once an asset forms part of a block, depreciation on the block cannot be denied merely because a particular asset within

Getinge Medical India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(2)(1), Mumbai Maharashtra

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

ITA 4872/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 115Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 156Section 234ASection 270ASection 37Section 41Section 41(1)(a)

such loss or depreciation shall be allowed for any subsequent year: Provided that where there is a depreciation allowance in respect of a block of asset which has not been given full effect to prior to the assessment year beginning on the 1st day of April, 2020, corresponding adjustment shall ... made to the written down value of such block of assets as on the 1st day of April, 2019 in the prescribed manner, if the option under sub-section (5) is exercised for a previous year relevant to the assessment year beginning on the 1st day of April

M/S R. S. Shetye & Bros, Panaji vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(1), Panaji

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

ITA 37/PAN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji27 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. No.37/Pan/2023 (A.Y.2016-17) R.S.Shetye & Bros, Vs Acit 1(1), Flat.No.14, 1 St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, . Trionara Apartments, Edc, Patto, New Muncipal Market, Panjim Panaji- Goa-403001. Goa-403001. Pan .No.Aabfr9785N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 3

further fall into two class by their very attributes in term of section 2(11) of the Act which defines the term 'block of assets' means a fixed assets classified into (a) tangible and (b) intangible assets. The intangible assets are know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises ... Income Tax Rules, 1962[‘the rules’]. The said licence being an intangible asset therefore to fall in the later class of block of assets eligible for depreciation @ prescribed in part B of Appendix to section 32 of the Act r.w.r. 5 (supra). 39. While pushing for alternate claim

Vimala Jayantilal Purohit, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Circle 17(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7063/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32

ground of excess depreciation claimed at 27.12% instead of 15% without giving due weight to the actual usage, classification under correct block of assets, and other relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The disallowance is arbitrary and liable to be reversed

Shree Nath Kripa Foods Private Limited, Riico Industrial Area, Nokha vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO, Ward, Nokha

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

ITA 198/JODH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Bleshree Nath Kripa Foods Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ito, Ward F-41 & F-42, Riico Industrial Bikaner Area, Nokha, Bikaner - 334803 Pan No. Aamcs 9124 Q Assessee By Shri Amit Kothari, Ca (Physical) Revenue By Shri Lalit Kumar Bishnoi, Addl. Cit-Dr (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As Nfac/ Cit(A)] Dated 30.01.2024 With Respect To Assessment Year 2016-17 Challenging Therein The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Ex-Parte In Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice.

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144cSection 92CSection 92E

part of income ignoring that the same has rightly been 3 Asst. Year: 2016-17 deducted from the WDV of Vehicle as block of assets did not cease to exist. Ld. AO incorrectly computed profit on sale of Vehicle as business income. 7. Under the facts and circumstances

Repro India Limited, Lower Parel, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6698/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250

while computing depreciation under the Act, the sale value of the assets amounting to Rs. 2,59,70,930/- was reduced from the block of assets in accordance with section 43(6). The depreciation was thereafter computed on the adjusted written down value of the block. 14. The learned ... submitted that once the sale consideration had already been reduced from the block of assets and depreciation computed accordingly under the statutory block concept, the separate book profit of Rs. 71,85,261/- could not again be brought to tax. According to the learned AR, the addition made

M/S. Ntt Data Global Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range- 5, Bangalore

ITA 2533/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2026AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Chavali NarayanFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K. J
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

annual report for FY 2012-13 it was stated in the notes to the consolidated results that the increase of intangible block of assets during the year (2012-13), of Rs.262.84 million, was mainly on account of acquisition of various IPs during the year and the same is shown

ACIT, CC 6(2), Mumbai vs. Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India) Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4321/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 1

matter is that a bungalow at Jor Bagh, Delhi was purchased by the assessee during the year and it formed part of its block of assets of building, on which the depreciation was claimed by assessee. The fact of addition in the block of asset in respect of the bungalow ... eligible for depreciation. Even otherwise if the bungalow remained vacant, the depreciation is to be allowed as the asset formed part of block of asset. 4.6. After taking into account the detailed submissions made by the assessee in the course of first appellate proceedings, ld. CIT(A) came

ACIT, CC 6(2), Mumbai vs. Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India) Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4320/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 1

matter is that a bungalow at Jor Bagh, Delhi was purchased by the assessee during the year and it formed part of its block of assets of building, on which the depreciation was claimed by assessee. The fact of addition in the block of asset in respect of the bungalow ... eligible for depreciation. Even otherwise if the bungalow remained vacant, the depreciation is to be allowed as the asset formed part of block of asset. 4.6. After taking into account the detailed submissions made by the assessee in the course of first appellate proceedings, ld. CIT(A) came

ACIT, CC 6(2), Mumbai vs. Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India) Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4319/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 1

matter is that a bungalow at Jor Bagh, Delhi was purchased by the assessee during the year and it formed part of its block of assets of building, on which the depreciation was claimed by assessee. The fact of addition in the block of asset in respect of the bungalow ... eligible for depreciation. Even otherwise if the bungalow remained vacant, the depreciation is to be allowed as the asset formed part of block of asset. 4.6. After taking into account the detailed submissions made by the assessee in the course of first appellate proceedings, ld. CIT(A) came

ACIT, CC-6(2), Mumbai vs. Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India) Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4318/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 1

matter is that a bungalow at Jor Bagh, Delhi was purchased by the assessee during the year and it formed part of its block of assets of building, on which the depreciation was claimed by assessee. The fact of addition in the block of asset in respect of the bungalow ... eligible for depreciation. Even otherwise if the bungalow remained vacant, the depreciation is to be allowed as the asset formed part of block of asset. 4.6. After taking into account the detailed submissions made by the assessee in the course of first appellate proceedings, ld. CIT(A) came

ACIT, CC 6(2), Mumbai vs. Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India) Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4090/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari andFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and
Section 1

matter is that a bungalow at Jor Bagh, Delhi was purchased by the assessee during the year and it formed part of its block of assets of building, on which the depreciation was claimed by assessee. The fact of addition in the block of asset in respect of the bungalow ... eligible for depreciation. Even otherwise if the bungalow remained vacant, the depreciation is to be allowed as the asset formed part of block of asset. 4.6. After taking into account the detailed submissions made by the assessee in the course of first appellate proceedings, ld. CIT(A) came

Overseas Infrastructure Alliance(India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4064/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari andFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and
Section 1

matter is that a bungalow at Jor Bagh, Delhi was purchased by the assessee during the year and it formed part of its block of assets of building, on which the depreciation was claimed by assessee. The fact of addition in the block of asset in respect of the bungalow ... eligible for depreciation. Even otherwise if the bungalow remained vacant, the depreciation is to be allowed as the asset formed part of block of asset. 4.6. After taking into account the detailed submissions made by the assessee in the course of first appellate proceedings, ld. CIT(A) came

Overseas Infrastructure Alliance(India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -6, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4045/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 1

matter is that a bungalow at Jor Bagh, Delhi was purchased by the assessee during the year and it formed part of its block of assets of building, on which the depreciation was claimed by assessee. The fact of addition in the block of asset in respect of the bungalow ... eligible for depreciation. Even otherwise if the bungalow remained vacant, the depreciation is to be allowed as the asset formed part of block of asset. 4.6. After taking into account the detailed submissions made by the assessee in the course of first appellate proceedings, ld. CIT(A) came

Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India) Private Limtied, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4044/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 1

matter is that a bungalow at Jor Bagh, Delhi was purchased by the assessee during the year and it formed part of its block of assets of building, on which the depreciation was claimed by assessee. The fact of addition in the block of asset in respect of the bungalow ... eligible for depreciation. Even otherwise if the bungalow remained vacant, the depreciation is to be allowed as the asset formed part of block of asset. 4.6. After taking into account the detailed submissions made by the assessee in the course of first appellate proceedings, ld. CIT(A) came

Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India) Private Limtied, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4043/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 1

matter is that a bungalow at Jor Bagh, Delhi was purchased by the assessee during the year and it formed part of its block of assets of building, on which the depreciation was claimed by assessee. The fact of addition in the block of asset in respect of the bungalow ... eligible for depreciation. Even otherwise if the bungalow remained vacant, the depreciation is to be allowed as the asset formed part of block of asset. 4.6. After taking into account the detailed submissions made by the assessee in the course of first appellate proceedings, ld. CIT(A) came

ACIT CC 6(2), Mumbai vs. Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India) Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3998/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 1

matter is that a bungalow at Jor Bagh, Delhi was purchased by the assessee during the year and it formed part of its block of assets of building, on which the depreciation was claimed by assessee. The fact of addition in the block of asset in respect of the bungalow ... eligible for depreciation. Even otherwise if the bungalow remained vacant, the depreciation is to be allowed as the asset formed part of block of asset. 4.6. After taking into account the detailed submissions made by the assessee in the course of first appellate proceedings, ld. CIT(A) came

ACIT, CC-6(2), Mumbai vs. Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India) Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3995/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 1

matter is that a bungalow at Jor Bagh, Delhi was purchased by the assessee during the year and it formed part of its block of assets of building, on which the depreciation was claimed by assessee. The fact of addition in the block of asset in respect of the bungalow ... eligible for depreciation. Even otherwise if the bungalow remained vacant, the depreciation is to be allowed as the asset formed part of block of asset. 4.6. After taking into account the detailed submissions made by the assessee in the course of first appellate proceedings, ld. CIT(A) came

Franklin Templeton International Services (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 6(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1495/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 133(6)Section 92D

erred in not allowing depreciation of Rs. 7,17,193 on the written down value of assets being items included to block of assets of Computer, Plant and Machinery, Building consequent to disallowance of revenue expenditure in the assessment orders of assessment year ... erred in not allowing depreciation of Rs. 6,24,633 on the written down value of assets being items included to block of assets of Computer, Plant and Machinery, Building consequent to disallowance of revenue expenditure in the assessment orders of assessment year 2004-05, 2005. Brief facts