“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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bajaj Holdings & Investment Ltd ( Formerly Bajaj Auto Ltd), Mumbai vs. ACIT Ltu, Mumbai

ITA 5299/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2025AY 2006-07

Section 143(3)

written down value of the block which includes the above assets. Once depreciation allowed in earlier year and such asset forms part of block of assets, depreciation ought to be allowed in subsequent years. for the above proposition he relied on the following case law: ITA No. 6838/Mum/2008, ITA No.6674/Mum/2008

Bajaj Holdings & Investments Ltd ( Formerly Known As Bajaj Auto Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6838/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2025AY 2004-2005

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor

Section 143(3)

Johnson and Johnson Private Limited (As Successor of Nr Jet Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. CIT(Appeals) NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 1756/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Barate, Sr. DR

Section 112Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 234CSection 234DSection 250Section 50

purpose of depreciation. Since, in the present case, both trademarks were purchased prior to 01/04/1998, therefore they did not form part of the block of assets in respect of which depreciation was allowed under this Act. Accordingly, as per the assessee, provisions of section 50 of the Act have ... depreciable assets. 50. Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (42A) of section 2, where the capital asset is an asset forming part of a block of assets in respect of which depreciation has been allowed under this Act or under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), the provisions

DCIT., Circle 8(1), Hyderabad vs. East India Petroleum Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1087/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narsimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1087/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. East India Petroleum Income Tax Limited Circle-8(1)(Incharge) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaace4494K] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri H.Srinivasulu, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms.M.Narmada, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/01/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 06/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 19.08.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2018-19. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, Engaged In The Business Of Providing Terminalling Services To Oil Marketing Companies For Storage Of Bulk Liquid Products Including Fuels Like High Speed Diesel, Motor Spirit, Petroleum

For Appellant: Shri H.Srinivasulu, ARFor Respondent: Ms.M.Narmada, CIT-DR

Section 32

that once any asset, 17 East India Petroleum Limited including intangible asset, more particularly, goodwill is added to the respective block of assets of the amalgamated company, in the context of claim of depreciation in the hands of amalgamated company and such addition to the block of assets would

L & T Technologies Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the additional grounds of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4255/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeel&T Technologies Services Ltd Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income L&T House, N.M. Marg, Tax, Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai Room No.545, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Mumbai Pan: Aaccl4310P Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash (CIT- DR)

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 170Section 2Section 250Section 37Section 90

revision or reassessment proceedings was initiated to change such position, it is submitted that, depreciation on asset which forms part of the block of assets cannot be denied in a later year. During the year under consideration, an Addendum dated 31.03.2014 was executed to the Business Transfer Agreement clarifying that ... assets to the appellant. The appellant also claimed that the A.O. even not allowed the depreciation on the opening value of this block of assets namely goodwill. I have gone through the AO. order and the submissions made by the appellant and found that the A.O. has rightly rejected

DCIT-3(2)(1), Aaykar Bhawan vs. Marshall Produce Brokers Company Pvt Ltd, Nariman Point

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5092/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Respondent: Mr. Harsh Kothari

erred in not the appellant's business. The CIT(A) further erred in not appreciating that once the asset has entered into the block of assets on appreciating that once the asset has entered into the block of assets on appreciating that once the asset has entered into the block

Marshall Produce Brokers Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4918/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Respondent: Mr. Harsh Kothari

Marshall Produce Brokers Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4917/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Respondent: Mr. Harsh Kothari

Cheers Interactive (India) Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2418/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval Shah, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 43A

page – 26. On these rights under agreement identified as intangible fixed asset, assessee claimed depreciation at the rate of 25% in its gross block of assets while computing profits and gains of business or profession under the Act which amounts to Rs.3,14,71,750/-. According to assessee, depreciation

M/S Tdk India Pvt. Ltd.(Formerly Known As M/S Epcos India Pvt. Ltd.), Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 282/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 144C(5)Section 92C

incurred in connection with acquisition of imported assets which were duly disallowed in the computation of total income and added to block of assets as per Section 43A of the Act. The remaining amount of Rs.5,11,16,904/- represented realized loss on settlement of external commercial borrowing used

M/S Tdk India Limited (Formerly Known As Epcos India Pvt. Ltd.), Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. -11(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 203/KOL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 144C(5)Section 92C

EPCOS India Pvt. Ltd.) connection with acquisition of imported assets which were duly disallowed in the computation of total income and added to block of assets as per Section 43A of the Act. The remaining amount of Rs. 5,11,16,904/- represented realized loss on settlement of external commercial

Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC Bengaluru, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 782/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss Padmavathy S.Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income- 204, Raheja Centre, Free Press Tax,Circle 3(4), Mumbai Journal Marg, Nariman Point World Trade Centre 1, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 005 Pan : Aaace30836F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Shekhar GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das CIT DR

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 41(2)Section 50

they were shown in the books of accounts. It is important to note that under the Income Tax Act, the concept of a block of assets is provided for fixed assets. This means that all the assets belonging to a particular category are clubbed together and known as a block ... loss is allowed as a deduction. Section 43(6)(c)(i) of the Income Tax Act provides that the WDV of the block of assets will be computed by reducing the moneys payable in respect of any asset falling within that block, which is sold or discarded or demolished

Silver Oak Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. ACIT-6, Pune

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

ITA 2589/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Miss Aarti ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

clearly a case of inadvertent mistake on part of the appellant, in as much as an incorrect figure for opening WDV of block of assets has been adopted for the purpose of computing the admissible depreciation. The mistake is purely an oversight. because both the figures i.e. the closing ... block of assets as per the Income Tax Act and the closing WDV of block of assets as per the Companies Act, for the immediately preceding year, were available on record; but the incorrect figure was adopted by mistake by the Tax Auditor, and the same was relied upon

Janak Texturisers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 472/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri G.P. Mehta, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 24Section 3

thus exploited its business asset by way of renting out its business assets. He submitted that, the factory premises formed part of the block of assets that was rented out against which the rental income was earned. He submitted that, the business asset were thus utilized by the assessee

ACIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Hinduja National Power Corporation Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

ITA 235/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.235/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) The Assistant M/S. Hinduja National Power Commissioner Of Income Vs. Corporation Ltd. Tax, Circle 2(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch2426D अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K. A. Sai Prasad, C.A. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr.

For Appellant: Shri K. A. Sai Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 32ASection 92C

such machinery or plant. Clause (ii) of Section 32 deals with the calculation of depreciation on the written down value of the block of assets. Under Section 32(1)(iia), the assessee is entitled to an additional deduction of 20% over and above the normal depreciation, provided the new machinery

DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, **appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4103/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar**

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 41(1)

produce any evidence in support of utilisation of the alleged property for business purposes**. **Evidence in support of treating this property under Block of Assets from the year of merger and the amount of depreciation claimed by the assessee till the AYr.2019-20 couldn't be produced.** The AO considered ... adopting the Stamp Duty valuation. He further erred in alleging that the Appellant has not established that properties have been considered under Block of Assets and ![](_page_6_Picture_4.jpeg) that it is also not clear whether the above said block is in existence or not which is factually incorrect since the appellant

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-3(2)(2), Assessment Unit, Income Tax Dept, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3754/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal a/w Shri Bhargav ParekhFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das (CIT DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 41(1)

produce any evidence in support of utilisation of the alleged property for business purposes. Evidence in support of treating this property under Block of Assets from the year of merger and the amount of depreciation claimed by the assessee till the AYr.2019-20 couldn't be produced. The AO considered ... adopting the Stamp Duty valuation. He further erred in alleging that the Appellant has not established that properties have been considered under Block of Assets and that it is also not clear whether the above said block is in existence or not which is factually incorrect since the appellant clearly

ACIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Airpay Payment Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 4362/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Shri Pitamber Kumar, Addl. CIT

Section 115Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(a)Section 250Section 250(6)

Assessing Officer ('ld. A.O.' for short) observed that the assessee has claimed depreciation on fixed assets amounting to Rs. 57,06,162/- from block of assets viz. ‘land at Alibaug’ but had not offered any capital gain on the said transaction. The assessee contended that the land was asset

Patna Bakhtiyarpur Tollway Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee dismissed

ITA 182/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Bleassessment Year – 2017-18 Patna Bakhtiyarpur Tollway Vs. Acit Circle-16(2) Limited Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan : Aafcp9577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S.Rama Rao, Ar Revenue By: Ms.K.Haritha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.12.2024 31.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms.K.Haritha, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32

distribution of power, such percentage on the actual cost thereof to the assessee as may be prescribed; (ii) in the case of any block of assets, such percentage on the written down value thereof as may be prescribed: Provided that no deduction shall be allowed under this clause in respect ... previous year relevant to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1991, the deduction in relation to any block of assets under this clause shall, 28 in the case of a company, be restricted to seventy-five per cent of the amount calculated at the percentage

ACIT, Non-Corporate Cirle-8, Chennai vs. Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai

ITA 254/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. C. Naresh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sasikumar, IRS. CIT

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'D' BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND HON