← 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

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Nitrex Chemicals India Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2536/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaacit, Vs. M/S. Nitrex Chemicals India Circle 18(2), Ltd. New Delhi 1213, Ansal Towers, 38-Nehru Place, New Delhi 110019 Pan : Aaacf7820L M/S. Nitrex Chemicals India Vs. Dcit, Ltd. Circle 18(2), 1213, Ansal Towers, New Delhi 38-Nehru Place, New Delhi 110019 Pan : Aaacf7820L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 37(1)

capital asset. Next Section 43(6) (c) of the Act which defines the “written down values” provides : “(c) in the case of any block of assets,- (i) in respect of any previous year relevant to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988, the aggregate ... written down values of all the assets falling within that block of assets at the beginning of the previous year and adjusted, -- (A) by the increase by the actual cost of any asset falling within that block, acquired during the previous year; (B) by the reduction of the moneys payable

D Ketan & Co., Mumbai vs. ACIT-32(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 978/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.978/मुं/ 2023 ("न.व.2010-11) D.Ketan & Co., 310,Sai Leela, Commercial Complex, Opp Moksh Plaza, S.V.Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai – 400 091. Pan: Aadfd-2513-L ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax 32(1), Mumbai. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri D.C.Saboo ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Smt. Mahita Nair सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 21/06/2023 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/06/2023

For Appellant: Shri D.C.SabooFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69C

cost of fixed asset (machinery) purchased during the year has been included in bogus purchases. The assessee has already disclosed machinery in the block of assets and has claimed depreciation thereon. The Assessing Officer is directed to reduce the cost of machinery i.e.1,94,832/- from the bogus purchases

Standard Chartered Investments & Loan India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(3), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 848/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2023AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv M. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Pitta
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92C

computed at the rate of 60% on the opening Written Down Value (WDV) as no additions were made to the block of assets during the relevant previous year. However, the Assessing Officer again restricted the claim of depreciation to 15% and made a disallowance

Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Co. Ltd., Raipur vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 24/RPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur15 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.16/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. O/O. Executive Director-Finance Ground Floor, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5772F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.24/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. Ground Floor, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5772F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32

Company Ltd. ITA No.24/RPR/2022 company was entitled for depreciation on the WDV that was lastly shown by CSEB, before its disintegration, for each block of assets, which thereafter were ultimately transferred to all the new companies formed on its disintegration, viz. CSPGCL, CSPTCL, CSPDCL and CHPHCL. In the absence ... received consequent upon restructuring/reorganization of erstwhile CSEB, i.e. by calculating the same on the WDV that was lastly shown by CSEB for each block of assets, and which thereafter were ultimately transferred to all the new companies formed by its disintegration, viz. CSPGCL ( i.e. assessee company), CSPTCL, CSPDCL and CHPHCL

The Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited, Raipur, Raipur (Cg) vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax 1(2), Raipur, Raipur (Cg)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 16/BIL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur15 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.16/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. O/O. Executive Director-Finance Ground Floor, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5772F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.24/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. Ground Floor, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5772F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32

Company Ltd. ITA No.24/RPR/2022 company was entitled for depreciation on the WDV that was lastly shown by CSEB, before its disintegration, for each block of assets, which thereafter were ultimately transferred to all the new companies formed on its disintegration, viz. CSPGCL, CSPTCL, CSPDCL and CHPHCL. In the absence ... received consequent upon restructuring/reorganization of erstwhile CSEB, i.e. by calculating the same on the WDV that was lastly shown by CSEB for each block of assets, and which thereafter were ultimately transferred to all the new companies formed by its disintegration, viz. CSPGCL ( i.e. assessee company), CSPTCL, CSPDCL and CHPHCL

DCIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 5978/MUM/2004[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43BSection 80Section 80H

that the assessee company has capitalised the different assets in different assessment years and was also claiming depreciation on these assets under the block of assets of 'Cement Division' and only in the year under consideration, the assessee company demerged these assets from block of assets of the 'Cement Division

Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Range 6(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4754/MUM/2004[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43BSection 80Section 80H

that the assessee company has capitalised the different assets in different assessment years and was also claiming depreciation on these assets under the block of assets of 'Cement Division' and only in the year under consideration, the assessee company demerged these assets from block of assets of the 'Cement Division

DCIT 7(3), Mumbai vs. Wyeth Ltd ( Formerly Known As Wyeth Lederle Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3508/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blepfizer Limited V. Acit- Special Range 23 (Earlier Known As Wyeth Lederle Limited) [Now The Dcit-Circle 7(3)] The Capital, G-Block Aayakar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai- 400020 Bandra (E), Mumbai -400012 Pan: Aaacp3334M (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit- Ltu V. M/S. Wyeth Limited 28Th Floor, Centre - 1 (Formerly Known As Wyeth Lederle Ltd) Rbc Mahindra Towers World Trade Centre 4Th Floor, A- Wing Cuffe Parade, Mumbai Dr G.M. Bhosale Road Worli, Mumbai- 400055 Pan: Aaacw2641Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vishal Kalra Department Represented By : Smt. Sujatha Iyangar

Section 43(6)Section 80H

Addl.CIT was justified in reducing book written down value of assets transferred by them in the scheme of demerger from the opening block of asset for the purposes of computing depreciation allowable to them. Your appellants submit that on the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard ... purposes of computing depreciation admissible under the Act only the tax written down value is required to be reduced from the opening block of assets. Your appellants pray that the Addl.CIT be directed to compute depreciation accordingly. The CIT(A) erred in holding that while computing deduction under Section 80HHC

M/S Nikhil Estate P Ltd, Indore vs. The ACIT Central Circle (3) Indore, Indore

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 28/IND/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Nikhil Estate Pvt. Ltd. Acit (Central)-3 M-102, Mezzanine, Floor, Indore Dhan Trident, P. No.B-3 Pu- Vs. 4, Sch. No.54, Vijay Nagar Square, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcn 8056 D Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.06.2023

Section 115BSection 133ASection 69Section 69B

hereinbelow Explanation 3 to Section 32(1) of the Act: “Explanation 3.—For the purposes of this sub-section, the expressions ‘assets’ and ‘block of assets’ shall mean— (a) tangible assets, being buildings, machinery, plant or furniture; (b) intangible assets, being know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises

M/S Supremo India Ltd, Indore vs. The Ait Central 3, Indore

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 29/IND/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Supremo India Pvt. Ltd. Acit Central-3 400/2, Halka Patwari No.52 Indore Vs. Badiakeema Dudhiya, B.O. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcs 9822 C Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.06.2023

Section 115BSection 131(1)Section 133ASection 69ASection 69B

hereinbelow Explanation 3 to Section 32(1) of the Act: “Explanation 3.—For the purposes of this sub-section, the expressions ‘assets’ and ‘block of assets’ shall mean— (a) tangible assets, being buildings, machinery, plant or furniture; (b) intangible assets, being know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. the Fertilizer Corporation of India, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for A

ITA 3357/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Sarita Kumari, CIT, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)

carried out by the assessee during the year and accordingly, the depreciation would not be allowable. We find that the concept of block of assets was introduced from 1.4.1988 in the statute and once the asset enters the block, its identity is lost and thereafter in subsequent years, the same ... would not be identifiable individually. As per the Income Tax Act, the depreciation is allowed on the block of assets and not on any individual assets. The plant and machinery for manufacture of fertilizers was kept in ready to use condition by the assessee company. In this regard

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. the Fertilizer Corporation of India, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for A

ITA 3356/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Sarita Kumari, CIT, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)

carried out by the assessee during the year and accordingly, the depreciation would not be allowable. We find that the concept of block of assets was introduced from 1.4.1988 in the statute and once the asset enters the block, its identity is lost and thereafter in subsequent years, the same ... would not be identifiable individually. As per the Income Tax Act, the depreciation is allowed on the block of assets and not on any individual assets. The plant and machinery for manufacture of fertilizers was kept in ready to use condition by the assessee company. In this regard

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. the Fertilizer Corporation of India, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for A

ITA 3355/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Sarita Kumari, CIT, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)

carried out by the assessee during the year and accordingly, the depreciation would not be allowable. We find that the concept of block of assets was introduced from 1.4.1988 in the statute and once the asset enters the block, its identity is lost and thereafter in subsequent years, the same ... would not be identifiable individually. As per the Income Tax Act, the depreciation is allowed on the block of assets and not on any individual assets. The plant and machinery for manufacture of fertilizers was kept in ready to use condition by the assessee company. In this regard

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. the Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for A

ITA 5468/DEL/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Sarita Kumari, CIT, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)

carried out by the assessee during the year and accordingly, the depreciation would not be allowable. We find that the concept of block of assets was introduced from 1.4.1988 in the statute and once the asset enters the block, its identity is lost and thereafter in subsequent years, the same ... would not be identifiable individually. As per the Income Tax Act, the depreciation is allowed on the block of assets and not on any individual assets. The plant and machinery for manufacture of fertilizers was kept in ready to use condition by the assessee company. In this regard

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. the Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for A

ITA 5467/DEL/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Sarita Kumari, CIT, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)

carried out by the assessee during the year and accordingly, the depreciation would not be allowable. We find that the concept of block of assets was introduced from 1.4.1988 in the statute and once the asset enters the block, its identity is lost and thereafter in subsequent years, the same ... would not be identifiable individually. As per the Income Tax Act, the depreciation is allowed on the block of assets and not on any individual assets. The plant and machinery for manufacture of fertilizers was kept in ready to use condition by the assessee company. In this regard

Zodiac Jrd Mkj Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst Cir 5(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 836/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Ms. Drutika Jain, A.R. &For Respondent: Smt. Sonia Kumar, D.R
Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 2Section 234BSection 50Section 54E

assessee’s another office at Panchratna and a factory at Dahisar in addition to the property in question was added to the block of assets. It is also not in dispute that the assessee has invested Rs.50,00,000/- under section 54EC of the Act in NHAI bond

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

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1557/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/ Ms. AyushiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 153C

subsequent years when this amount is capitalized it Sheet. In subsequent years when this amount is capitalized it is added to the block of assets which has resulted in higher is added to the block of assets which has resulted in higher is added to the block of assets which

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

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1054/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/ Ms. AyushiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 153C

subsequent years when this amount is capitalized it Sheet. In subsequent years when this amount is capitalized it is added to the block of assets which has resulted in higher is added to the block of assets which has resulted in higher is added to the block of assets which

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

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1053/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/ Ms. AyushiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 153C

subsequent years when this amount is capitalized it Sheet. In subsequent years when this amount is capitalized it is added to the block of assets which has resulted in higher is added to the block of assets which has resulted in higher is added to the block of assets which

ACIT, Circle-19(1), New Delhi vs. Ongc Videsh Limited, New Delhi

ITA 2185/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaacit, Vs. Ongc Videsh Limited Circle-19(1), Tower-B5, Nelson Mandela New Delhi Marg, Vasant Kinj, New Delhi Pan : Aaaco1230F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 32Section 37(1)Section 42

counsel of the assessee made following submissions in this regard :- • Support equipment is a part of the block of assets. Depreciation on support equipment claimed by the assessee till A Y 2005-06 had been held allowable by the AO himself. • Further, the depreciation claimed ... such depreciation is allowable on cost incurred for acquisition of such assets during the year and also in respect of WDV of other block of assets acquired in the preceding years. • Support equipment are for the purpose of the business and details of related oil blocks are enclosed in paper