← 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

Kifs International LLP, Ahmedabad vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi Presently With ACIT, Central Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 684/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 682, 683 & 684/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 To 2018-19) Kifs International Llp Acit बनाम/ B-81, Pariseema Complex, Circle-5(2)(1), Vs. C. G. Road, Ellisbridge, Narayan Chambers Ahmedabad 380006 Building, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad [Presently With Acit, Central Circle 1(4), 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Ashrma Road, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaqfk2892L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Assessee By : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.Rs. Revenue By : Shri Ritesh Parmar, Cit. Dr & Shri Rajdeep Singh, Sr.Dr (On 08.11.2023) & Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Cit.Dr (On 30.01.2024) सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 08/11/2023 & 30.01.2024 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 08/02/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Bunch Of Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Dated 14.08.2023 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad (In Short ‘Cit(A)’) Arising Out Of The Orders Dated

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Parmar, CIT. DR & Shri
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 32Section 32(1)Section 43(6)

Supreme Court in case of Smifs Securities Ltd., reported in (2012) 348 ITR 302. Once the Goodwill forms part of the block of assets of KIPL under Section 32 of the Act, it would also form part of the block of assets of the appellant formed pursuant to the conversion ... specified under Section 47(xiiib) of the Act. Furthermore, in terms of Explanation 2C to Section 43(6) of the Act, if the block of assets is transferred by a Private Company or unlisted public company to an LLP and the conditions specified in the proviso to clause (xiib

Kifs International LLP, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-5(2)(1) Presently With ACIT, Central Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 683/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 682, 683 & 684/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 To 2018-19) Kifs International Llp Acit बनाम/ B-81, Pariseema Complex, Circle-5(2)(1), Vs. C. G. Road, Ellisbridge, Narayan Chambers Ahmedabad 380006 Building, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad [Presently With Acit, Central Circle 1(4), 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Ashrma Road, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaqfk2892L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Assessee By : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.Rs. Revenue By : Shri Ritesh Parmar, Cit. Dr & Shri Rajdeep Singh, Sr.Dr (On 08.11.2023) & Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Cit.Dr (On 30.01.2024) सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 08/11/2023 & 30.01.2024 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 08/02/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Bunch Of Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Dated 14.08.2023 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad (In Short ‘Cit(A)’) Arising Out Of The Orders Dated

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Parmar, CIT. DR & Shri
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 32Section 32(1)Section 43(6)

Supreme Court in case of Smifs Securities Ltd., reported in (2012) 348 ITR 302. Once the Goodwill forms part of the block of assets of KIPL under Section 32 of the Act, it would also form part of the block of assets of the appellant formed pursuant to the conversion ... specified under Section 47(xiiib) of the Act. Furthermore, in terms of Explanation 2C to Section 43(6) of the Act, if the block of assets is transferred by a Private Company or unlisted public company to an LLP and the conditions specified in the proviso to clause (xiib

Kifs International LLP, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-5(2)(1) Presently With ACIT, Central Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 682/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 682, 683 & 684/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 To 2018-19) Kifs International Llp Acit बनाम/ B-81, Pariseema Complex, Circle-5(2)(1), Vs. C. G. Road, Ellisbridge, Narayan Chambers Ahmedabad 380006 Building, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad [Presently With Acit, Central Circle 1(4), 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Ashrma Road, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaqfk2892L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Assessee By : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.Rs. Revenue By : Shri Ritesh Parmar, Cit. Dr & Shri Rajdeep Singh, Sr.Dr (On 08.11.2023) & Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Cit.Dr (On 30.01.2024) सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 08/11/2023 & 30.01.2024 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 08/02/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Bunch Of Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Dated 14.08.2023 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad (In Short ‘Cit(A)’) Arising Out Of The Orders Dated

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Parmar, CIT. DR & Shri
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 32Section 32(1)Section 43(6)

Supreme Court in case of Smifs Securities Ltd., reported in (2012) 348 ITR 302. Once the Goodwill forms part of the block of assets of KIPL under Section 32 of the Act, it would also form part of the block of assets of the appellant formed pursuant to the conversion ... specified under Section 47(xiiib) of the Act. Furthermore, in terms of Explanation 2C to Section 43(6) of the Act, if the block of assets is transferred by a Private Company or unlisted public company to an LLP and the conditions specified in the proviso to clause (xiib

Jabil Circuit India P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -3, Mumbai

ITA 349/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.349/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Jabil Circuit India Pvt. Ltd. Arena House, 3Rd Floor, Plot No. 103 Road No. 12, Opp Tulip Telecom Marol Midc, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093. बनाम / Vs. Pcit-03, Mumbai Room No. 612, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7114K (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Revenue By: Shri Nitesh Joshi Shri Ankush Kapoor (Cit Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/02/2024 Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: आदेश / Order This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-03, [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”], Mumbai Dated 18.01.2021 For

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Nitesh Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 263Section 263(1)

dispute that the factory building, plant and machinery and furniture and fixtures relating to the said units formed part of the respective block of assets. According to him, since M/s. Nokia had to close down its factory at Chennai and for other reasons, the assessee's management decided to suspend ... manufacturing operations at the Chennai unit. However, it continued to claim depreciation on the written down value of the block of assets which also included the assets relating to the Chennai unit. According to him, the assessee filed its return of income for assessment year 2013-14 i.e. the relevant