“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

Itc Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Range-8, Kolkata

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1166/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 37

issue before us whether the said capital receipt is liable to be deducted from the cost of assets or adjusted against the block of asset from actual cost which has been met by any other person. In our opinion the liquidated damages does not fall within the ambit of cost ... value to be computed only in the manner provided thereunder i.e. value computed by adding actual cost of assets falling within the block of assets acquired during the previous year or deducting the money payable in respect of any asset within the block which is sold, discarded or demolished

Itc Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Range-8, Kolkata

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1068/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 37

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 7, New Delhi vs. Quippo Oil and Gas Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4885/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) and before Ld. CIT(A) the assessee has made a detailed submissions and submitted that the issues under consideration relating to depreciation on oil rigs and computers. The issue of capitalization of repairs and maintenance are covered issue in favour of the assessee by the earlier decision of First Appellate Authority. The Ld. CIT(A) has allowed the grounds raised by the assessee by following the appellate order in assesse’s own case.

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 32

computer allied accessories whereas the depreciation schedule clearly shows that the deprecation claimed by the assessee for the assets forming part of block of assets which consists of oil rigs and the computers installed by the assessee. Both these assets are falling under the rate of 60% forming part ... always remains at 60% and the rate of depreciation is common for oil rigs and computer. Both these assets are shown in one block of assets. ACIT vs. Quippo Oil and Gas Infrastructure Ltd. 11. With regard to issues of disallowance of Repairs and Maintenance Expenses, she submitted that this

Sony Pictues Netorks India P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/Asstt/CIT/ITO, National E-Assessment Centre Delhi (Now Known As National Faceless Assessment Centre), Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed

ITA 925/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble& Shri B.R. Baskaran: A.Y : 2015-16 : A.Y : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala with Shri Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri Salil Mishra – CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

Private Limited referred to Explanation 2 to sec.43(6)(c) of the Act. According to this Explanation, if a subsidiary company transfers any block of assets to its holding company and if the conditions specified in sec.47(iv) and (v) are satisfied, then the “actual cost’ of assets ... hands of transferee company shall be WDV of block of assets in the hands of transferor company as reduced by the amount of depreciation actually allowed in relation to said preceding previous year. The Ld A.R stated that MSM Singapore has not been allowed depreciation under the Indian Income

Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT CC 3 (2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed

ITA 7685/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble& Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala withFor Respondent: Shri Salil Mishra - CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

Allied Photographics India Limited, Churchgate vs. National Faceless Assessment Center, Delhi

ITA 3540/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra PoojaryFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 270ASection 274Section 32

flat was offered to tax as income from house property instead of business income. Since the aforesaid business asset was part of the block of assets, depreciation was claimed on the same on the basis of the understanding that when a group of similar assets form part of block ... assets the same lose their individual identity and the block of assets cannot be broken down to make disallowance of depreciation. It was specifically submitted that Clause (a) to (f) of Section 270A(9) of the Act were not attracted in the case of 3 the Appellant. However, the Assessing

JCIT Cent. Cir. - 1(4), Mumbai vs. Grasim Industries Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1559/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Grasim Industries Limited, The Dcit Cc-1(4), Corporate Finance Division, Room No. 902, 9Th Floor, Old Vs. A-2, Aditya Birla Centre, S.K. Cgo Building, M.K. Road, Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400030. Pan No. Aaacg 4464 B Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Jcit (Osd), Central Circle- Grasim Industries Limited, 1(4), A-Wing, 2Nd Floor, Aditya Room No. 902, Pratishtha Vs. Birla Centre, S.K. Ahire Bhavan, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Marg, Worli, Building Annexe, Mumbai-400030. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacg 4464 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Yogesh Thar & Mr. Chaitanya Joshi Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 03/04/2024 : Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2024

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar &For Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153C

learned CIT (A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in adopting lower opening written lower opening written down value of the block of assets for allowing down value of the block of assets for allowing depreciation allowance and ought to have directed the AO to re depreciation allowance ... same"to the opening written down 11 did not give effect of the same"to the opening written down value of the block of assets. The Appellant Company has challenged value of the block of assets. The Appellant Company has challenged value of the block of assets. The Appellant Company

Grasim Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. - 1(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1055/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar &For Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153C

learned CIT (A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in adopting lower opening written down value of the block of assets for allowing depreciation allowance and ought to have directed the AO to re- compute depreciation allowance allowable to the Appellant for the year adopting correct opening written ... computing allowable depreciation allowance for AY 2010-11 did not give effect of the same"to the opening written down value of the block of assets. The Appellant Company has challenged withdrawal of spill over additional depreciation allowance claim in A.Υ. 2008-09 in income tax Appeal

M/S Ashtech (India) Private Limited, Mumbai City vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee from AY 2013-14 to

ITA 3234/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram &For Respondent: Mr. Manish Sareen, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 40

total unaccounted sales have been worked out at Rs.22,50,000/-. The AO has also stated that since these are parts of the block of assets under the head "vehicles" and assessee was claiming depreciation @30% on this block of asset, unaccounted sale from sale of old vehicle ... reduced from block of assets and accordingly depreciation claimed to that extent was disallowed in the assessment order. Accordingly, depreciation worked out at Rs. 6,75,000/-for A.Y.2014-15 was disallowed by the AO and added back to the total income for the year under consideration. 37.1 During the appellate

Disney Broadcasting (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1884/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 32(1)Section 43(6)(c)

depreciation on goodwill and other intangible assets. 9. As per section 32(1) of the Act ‘depreciation’, in the case of any block of assets, is to be computed on the written down value. According to Explanation 2 of Section 32(1) "written down value of the block of assets ... depreciation was not deductible in determining the written down value for the purposes of the said clause (vi); in the case of any block of assets,— in respect of any previous year relevant to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988, the aggregate of the written

DCIT, Circle- 20(2), New Delhi vs. Quippo Energy (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4120/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.4120/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 बनाम Dcit, Quippo Energy (P) Ltd., D-2, 5Th Floor, Southern Park, Circle 20(2), Vs. New Delhi. Saket Place, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaacq1675Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 79

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:] 47. Rule 5 of the IT Rules, 1962 provides that the depreciation ... allowable under s. 32(1)(ii) of the Act in respect of any block of assets shall be calculated at the percentages specified in the II column of the table of rates of depreciation in Appendix I to the Rules, on the written down value of such block of assets

Diadora Shoes Pvt Ltd, Calicut vs. ACIT Circle 2(1), Calicut

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 92/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Anil Kumar Dugar, Jm

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR

Section 250Section 32(1)(iia)

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 .............. Provided further that where an asset referred to in clause

Indian Medical Trust, Jaipur vs. Dy. CIT, Jaipur

ITA 685/JPR/2023[A.Y. 2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Apr 2024

For Appellant: Shri G.M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 245D(4)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR श्री संदीप गोसाई, न्यायिक

Ananta Procon Private Limited, Unjha vs. The ACIT, Circle Patan, Patan

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

ITA 349/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.349/Ahd/2022 & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.870/Ahd/2023 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Ananta Procon Private Limited, The A.C.I.T, C-146, Gunj Bazar, Vs. Circle Patan, Unjha-384170, Patan. Gujarat

For Appellant: Shri M.K Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT.DR

Section 250(5)Section 80Section 80I

such there is no provision under the Act to tax the profit on sale of machinery of ₹ 1,61,255.00 if the relevant block of assets exists in the books of accounts. The ld. AR in support of its contention has drawn our attention to the schedule of fixed assets ... that the gross amount of sale consideration of such plant and machinery amounting to ₹ 15,23,810.00 has already been adjusted in the block of assets which can be verified from the depreciation schedule placed on page 9 of the paper book which was prepared under the provisions

Diadora Shoes Pvt Ltd, Calicut vs. ACIT Circle 2(1), Calicut

In the result, the assessee’sappeal is allowed

ITA 213/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasdiadora Shoes Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Cit, Circle - 2 Vkc Tower, Kolathra P.O Calicut 673001 Vs. Calicut 673655 [Pan:Aabcd9692D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Venugopal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

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 .............. 2 Diadora Shoes Pvt. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT, Circle - 2 Provided

Swami Vivekanand Trading & Education Centre P.Ltd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT 4(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2928/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Swami Vivekanand Trading & Education Centre P. Ltd. Dcit-4(3) 6-3-655/2/3 1St Floor, Mumbai Vs. Somajigudda, Hyderabad, Mumbai-400 082 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcs1050N Assessee By : Shri P. Murali Mohal Rao, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohal Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, DR

Section 142Section 143Section 32

referred to the 109 pages paper book submitted before us. With respect to disallowance of depreciation he submitted that there is an opening block of assets at the beginning of the year, no new assets were purchased during the year, therefore it is only claim of depreciation on the opening ... case of the assessee that depreciation is denied on one of the assets forming part of one of the blocks of assets. 09. We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the lower authorities. The facts clearly shows that during the course of assessment proceedings

Sumangal Glass Pvt. Ltd., Kutch vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesee is hereby allowed

ITA 676/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 676/Ahd/2023 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Sumangal Glass Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T, Plot No.617/1-618-620, Vs. Circle-4(1)(1), Nh-8A, Po. Samakhiyari (Piprapati), Ahmedabad Bhachau Taluka, Samakhiyari-370150. Pan: Aaics6992G

For Appellant: Shri Manish J Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)

before us submitted that the assessee has made adjustment on the sale of plant and machinery in the block of asset which evidences that the assessee has not claimed any excessive depreciation therein. However, such loss on the sale of machinery was inadvertently not added back in the computation ... parties and perused the materials available on record. From the above discussion, we note that the assessee has made necessary adjustments in the block of assets of the plant and machinery which was also not doubted by the authorities below. For this purpose, Asstt. Year 2011-12 3 we refer

M/S Coastal Energen Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1483/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1481/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1482/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1483/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Coastal Energen Private Limited Acit बनाम No.5, Bhuhari Building, Moores Road, Central Circle-1(1), / Vs. Egmore, Chennai-600 004. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcc-0886-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan (Ca)- Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri N. Balakrishnan (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 14-03-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22-03-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2015- 16 To 2017-18 Arise Out Of The Common Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai [Cit(A)] Dated 31-10-2023 In The Matter Of Separate Assessments Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao]

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (CA)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri N. Balakrishnan (CIT)-Ld. DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 32Section 43(6)

have considered the provisions of section 43(6) of the Act which states that the no adjustments can be made to the block of assets other than by way of sale of the asset. Therefore, once depreciation is granted to the block of asset ... disallowance of depreciation can be made without first lawfully reducing the w.d.v. of the block of assets. As is evident, the sole substantial issue that arises for our consideration is disallowance of depreciation. 1.3 The Ld. AR advanced arguments supporting the case of the assessee whereas Ld. CIT-DR supported

M/S Coastal Energen Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1482/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (CA)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri N. Balakrishnan (CIT)-Ld. DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 32Section 43(6)

M/S Coastal Energen Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1481/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (CA)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri N. Balakrishnan (CIT)-Ld. DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 32Section 43(6)