“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

Shree Aniruddha Upasana Foundation, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 706/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shree Aniruddha Upasana Cit (Exemption), Foundation, 601, 6Th Floor, Cumballa Hills Flat No. 702, Link Apartment, Vs. Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Tps Iii, Khari Village, Road, Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh Khar (West), Marg, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai-400052. Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaics 9217 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Snehal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Shailja Rai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/09/2022

For Appellant: Snehal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai, CIT-DR

Section 11(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263

Appellant. towards the various projects carried out by the Appellant. towards the various projects carried out by the Appellant. c. The reduction in block of assets with respect to the sale of The reduction in block of assets with respect to the sale of The reduction in block of assets

Nxp India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 264/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

networking equipment. The assessee acquired certain networking equipments during the year under consideration and the same have considered as addition to 60% depreciation block of assets. The AO held that the networking equipments cannot be classified as Computers and therefore allowed the depreciation at 15% instead of 60% and Page

Pr. CIT Circle-2, Mumbai vs. Bharat Prtroleum Corporation Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 1601/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1601/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Bharat Petroleum बिधम/ Pcit, Circle-2 Corporation Ltd. Room No.344, Aayakar Vs. Taxation Section, Bhavan, M. K. Road, 4Th Floor, Bharat Bhavan 1, Mumbai-400020. 4 & 6 Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400001. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb2902M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Jehangir D. Mistry Revenue By: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-02 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”], Mumbai Dated 21.02.2020 For Assessment Year [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ay”] 2016-17 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”].

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D. MistryFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)

Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 32A

deduction of Rs.972 crores on the entire sum of Rs.6477 crores. It is further noted by us that, the additions made to the block of assets ‘Plant & Machinery’ for the purposes of computing depreciation u/s 32 of the Act was Rs.4577.07 crores whereas the investment-linked deduction of Rs.972 crores ... during the year. In the original return of income, the assessee had accordingly reported these additions aggregating to Rs.4577.07 lacs under the respective Block of Assets. Subsequently, the assessee had revised the return of income wherein it had increased the figure of addition to the Block of Assets to Rs.4896.13

DCIT Circle- 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Reliance Corporate It Park Ltd., Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid findings

ITA 1195/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora a/wFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, Sr. AR

Section 250

assessee has claimed depreciation on plant and machinery given on lease and whether the lease value of machinery has been reduced from block of assets. The assessee was also asked to justify its claim of depreciation on such leased out assets and working of depreciation. In reply, assessee submitted that ... alia, did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and disallowed the entire amount of depreciation claimed under section 32 on the block of assets „plant and machinery‟ i.e. Rs. 25,10,58,154. In appeal, learned CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 15/11/2019, inter-alia, allowed the appeal

Maharashtra Steels Rolling Mills P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-35, Mumbai

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

ITA 5058/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Parida/Ms. KiranFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)

Section 14A

other hand, for income-tax purposes, the entire sale consideration received on sale of fixed assets is adjusted from the block of assets in terms of Section 43(6) read with Section 32 of the Act and only if the block ceases to exist, then the positive/negative figure remaining therein ... while computing business income. It is noted that the gross sale consideration (including the profit element embedded therein) was adjusted from the block of assets in accordance with Section 43(6) of the Act. Since the block of asset did not cease to exist, there was no charge of capital

Atos It Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 226/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, CAFor Respondent: Shri Bijoy Kumar Panda, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92B(2)Section 92C

basis that the assessee has not provided any scientific basis for valuation of goodwill. The AO observed that the actual cost of the block of assets in the hands of the transferor company would be the written down value in the immediate preceding year in the case of transferor company

Hikal Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 5388/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)

income. We find that the Head Office Expenses of the assessee were allocated amongst various industrial undertakings on the basis of average gross block of assets, turnover and manpower employed. Accordingly, the allocation of head office expenses made by the assessee are as under:- Taloja 35.84% Mahad 18.21% Panoli ... pleaded that the ld AO simply allocated the CBD expenses on the basis of turnover , by ignoring the criteria of gross block of assets and manpower employed in the respective units without any basis. The assessee tried to justify its basis of allocation by stating that all the units

Hikal Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 5387/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)

DCIT (OSD) Cir 3(1), Mumbai vs. Hikal Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 5372/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1), Mysuru vs. M/S. Bhoruka Aluminium Limited, Mysuru

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 2551/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Vs. M/S. Bhoruka Aluminium Ltd., No.427E, 2Nd Floor, Hebbal Industrial Circle – 1(1), Mysuru. Area, Metagalli, Mysuru – 570 016. Pan : Aaacb 8073 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. Ramasubramanian, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.08.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 2Section 288Section 35ASection 43Section 43(6)(c)Section 48Section 49Section 50B

worth, the aggregate value of total assets shall be,— (a) in the case of depreciable assets, the written down value of the block of assets determined in accordance with the provisions contained in sub-item (c) of item (i) of sub-clause (c) of clause (6) of section 43; Page

M/S. Onmobile Global Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 5(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2560/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 244ASection 32

depreciation - Grounds 20 to 20.4 24. During the year under consideration, the assessee has claimed depreciation @ 60% towards the addition made to the block of assets “Computers”. These additions included items like NMS CG/TX cards, switches, etc. The AO following the earlier years orders, allowed depreciation only @ 15% treating

M/S Onmobile Global Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 139/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 244ASection 32

Lg Soft India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 266/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Rashmi R., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R

Section 143(3)

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 13 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Zelle Biotechnology Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7675/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleacit-13(3)(2) V. M/S. Zelle Biotechnology Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 229/219, 2Nd Floor 110, Udyog Bhavan Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Sonawala Road, Goregaon (E) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400063 Pan: Aaacz2106R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Meet Shah Department By : Shri Hoshang B. Irani

For Appellant: Shri Meet ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)

Explanation 2 to section 43(6)(c) of the I.T. Act. The Act clearly lays down that the actual cost of the block of asset (intangible block in this case) in the hands of the amalgamated company would be the written down value in the immediate preceding year ... case of amalgamating company, if the W.D.V. of the intangible block of asset was zero in the books of the amalgamating company, the actual cost would remain zero in the hand of the amalgamated company." 3. "On the facts and circumstances of the case

;Marie Gold Realtors P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-CC-8(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 825/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth KotariFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Kabra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

tangible assets. The Tribunal had treated the same to be valuable commercial asset similar to other intangibles mentioned in the definition of the block of assets and, hence, eligible ‘or depreciation. It had also been noted by the Tribunal that the said facts were stated by the assessee

Marie Gold Realtors P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-CC-8(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 824/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth KotariFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Kabra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

DCIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Tech Mahindra P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose, while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3033/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri H.P. MahajaniFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay

Section 10ASection 250Section 2D

agree with the submissions of the assessee and held that said expenses are to be factored towards the block of assets and cannot be debited to profit and loss account. In appeal, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on this issue. Being aggrieved, the assessee

Elim Resort Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3(2)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 238/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year :2016-17 M/S. Elim Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, No.175, Nettigere Village, Ward – 3(2)(2), Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 061. Pan : Aadce 0682 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. B. S. Balachandra, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.02.2020 Of Cit(A)-2, Bengaluru, Relating To Ay 2016-17. 2. The First Issue Raised By The Assessee Is With Regard To Disallowance Of Depreciation On Buildings Of Rs.3,19,208/-. The Opening Wdv As On 01.04.2014 & As On 01.04.2015 As Per The Books Of Accounts Of The Assessee Was As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri. B. S. Balachandra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 32Section 43(1)

understood under section 43(1)(6) of the Act. The AO therefore could not have tampered with the WDV of the Building Block of Assets based on a valuation report prepared for a different purpose. The addition is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case and hence

Cisco Systems Capital (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 321/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

learned AO has erred in law and in fact, by not allowing depreciation on the opening written down value ("WDV") of the block of assets leased out under finance lease arrangement, pursuant to allowance of depreciation on the same block of assets for some of the prior years. 3) Without

DCIT - 3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. V. Hotels Ltd.(Formerly Known As Tulip Hospitality Services Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5664/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Section 32(1)(ii)

acquiring FSI at a cost of Rs. 3,40,81,320/-. The assessee included above said amount in block of asset and claimed depreciation @ 25% on the total cost of Rs. 3.40 crore. The AO noticed that the depreciation claim on the above asset had been rejected by the Assessing ... slump sale basis' and had not paid separate price for each of such intangible assets. Further, all the intangible assets fall under block of assets' on which depreciation is allowable @25%. The AO having accepted the fact that intangible assets were acquired by appellant on slump sale basis", in such