← All Phrases

“written down value”

DepreciationSection 43(6)Section 43(6)812 judgments

COROMANDEL INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 738/HYD/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Mar 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.738/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year:2015-16) Coromandel International Vs. Dcit, Limited, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aaacc7852K (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) करदाताका""त"न"ध"व/ : Shri Sp Chidambaram, Advocate Assessee Represented By राज"वका""त"न"ध"व/ : Ms. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr Department Represented By सुनवाईसमा"तहोनेक""त"थ/ : 02/03/2026 Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख/ : 18/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Coromandel International Limited (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 24/02/2025 For The Assessment Year (“A.Y.”) 2015-16. Page 1 Of 17 Coromandel International Limited Vs. Dcit 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 250Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35

books of account, did not add the same to the block of intangible assets for tax purposes, did not compute any Written Down Value in respect thereof and did not claim depreciation in the return of income either for Assessment Year 2014–15 or for the year under appeal ... Reserve and never capitalised the same as goodwill. Consequently, the alleged goodwill never formed part of the block of intangible assets and no Written Down Value was determined. It was further contended that depreciation under the block of assets system cannot be allowed in isolation without determining the foundational components

GETINGE MEDICAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA

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

ITA 4872/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 115Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 156Section 234ASection 270ASection 37Section 41Section 41(1)(a)

full effect to prior to the assessment year beginning on the 1st day of April, 2020, corresponding adjustment shall be made to the written down value of such block of assets as on the 1st day of April, 2019 in the prescribed manner, if the option under sub-section

ASCENTECH ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1686/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad06 Mar 2026AY 2017-18
For Appellant: MS Sree Lekha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Mathivanan S A, Sr. AR
Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)

only one difference. It was submitted\nthat the assessee following the Explanation-2 below section 50B(3) of the\nAct has adopted written down value of the block asset in case of the\ndepreciable asset as per the proviso to section 43 of the Act, which the\nAO has omitted

REPRO INDIA LIMITED,LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6698/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2026AY 2018-19
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250

nwritten down value as per books with the sale value of the\nrespective assets. The statement reflected the gross block,\naccumulated depreciation, written down value and sale value for\nvarious categories such as plant and machinery, office\nequipment, computers, buildings and other assets. The aggregate\nof the category-wise surplus ... reduced from the\nblock of assets in accordance with section 43(6). The depreciation\nwas thereafter computed on the adjusted written down value of\nthe block.\n14. The learned AR submitted that once the sale consideration\nhad already been reduced from the block of assets and\ndepreciation computed accordingly under

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4321/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 1

This property was purchased from Mr. Asim Ghosh and Ms. Sanjukta Ghosh on 31.07.2014 for Rs. 42 crores. After claiming depreciation, Written Down Value (WDV) for the year was Rs.37,25,32,589/. Source of funds for purchasing the property was loan taken from Standard Chartered Bank. During the year ... STCL which was disallowed. Table for computation of STCL is as under: Particulars Amount (Rs.) Sale Consideration 18,61,00,000 Less: Written down value of asset -37,25,32,589 Capital Gain/(Loss) (18,64,32,589) 9.2. The said property was used by assessee for its business purpose

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4320/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 1

This property was purchased from Mr. Asim Ghosh and Ms. Sanjukta Ghosh on 31.07.2014 for Rs. 42 crores. After claiming depreciation, Written Down Value (WDV) for the year was Rs.37,25,32,589/. Source of funds for purchasing the property was loan taken from Standard Chartered Bank. During the year ... STCL which was disallowed. Table for computation of STCL is as under: Particulars Amount (Rs.) Sale Consideration 18,61,00,000 Less: Written down value of asset -37,25,32,589 Capital Gain/(Loss) (18,64,32,589) 9.2. The said property was used by assessee for its business purpose

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4319/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 1

This property was purchased from Mr. Asim Ghosh and Ms. Sanjukta Ghosh on 31.07.2014 for Rs. 42 crores. After claiming depreciation, Written Down Value (WDV) for the year was Rs.37,25,32,589/. Source of funds for purchasing the property was loan taken from Standard Chartered Bank. During the year ... STCL which was disallowed. Table for computation of STCL is as under: Particulars Amount (Rs.) Sale Consideration 18,61,00,000 Less: Written down value of asset -37,25,32,589 Capital Gain/(Loss) (18,64,32,589) 9.2. The said property was used by assessee for its business purpose

ACIT, CC-6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4318/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 1

This property was purchased from Mr. Asim Ghosh and Ms. Sanjukta Ghosh on 31.07.2014 for Rs. 42 crores. After claiming depreciation, Written Down Value (WDV) for the year was Rs.37,25,32,589/. Source of funds for purchasing the property was loan taken from Standard Chartered Bank. During the year ... STCL which was disallowed. Table for computation of STCL is as under: Particulars Amount (Rs.) Sale Consideration 18,61,00,000 Less: Written down value of asset -37,25,32,589 Capital Gain/(Loss) (18,64,32,589) 9.2. The said property was used by assessee for its business purpose

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 4090/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

This property was purchased from\nMr. Asim Ghosh and Ms. Sanjukta Ghosh on 31.07.2014 for Rs. 42\ncrores. After claiming depreciation, Written Down Value (WDV) for the\nyear was Rs.37,25,32,589/. Source of funds for purchasing the\nproperty was loan taken from Standard Chartered Bank. During the\nyear ... therefore,\nthere is no occasion for STCL which was disallowed. Table for\ncomputation of STCL is as under:\nParticulars\nSale Consideration\nLess: Written down value of asset\nCapital Gain/(Loss)\nAmount (Rs.)\n18,61,00,000\n-37,25,32,589\n(18,64,32,589)\n9.2. The said property

OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4064/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

This property was purchased from\nMr. Asim Ghosh and Ms. Sanjukta Ghosh on 31.07.2014 for Rs. 42\ncrores. After claiming depreciation, Written Down Value (WDV) for the\nyear was Rs.37,25,32,589/. Source of funds for purchasing the\nproperty was loan taken from Standard Chartered Bank. During the\nyear ... therefore,\nthere is no occasion for STCL which was disallowed. Table for\ncomputation of STCL is as under:\nParticulars\nSale Consideration\nLess: Written down value of asset\nCapital Gain/(Loss)\nAmount (Rs.)\n18,61,00,000\n-37,25,32,589\n(18,64,32,589)\n9.2. The said property

OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -6 , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4045/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 1

This property was purchased from Mr. Asim Ghosh and Ms. Sanjukta Ghosh on 31.07.2014 for Rs. 42 crores. After claiming depreciation, Written Down Value (WDV) for the year was Rs.37,25,32,589/. Source of funds for purchasing the property was loan taken from Standard Chartered Bank. During the year ... STCL which was disallowed. Table for computation of STCL is as under: Particulars Amount (Rs.) Sale Consideration 18,61,00,000 Less: Written down value of asset -37,25,32,589 Capital Gain/(Loss) (18,64,32,589) 9.2. The said property was used by assessee for its business purpose

OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMTIED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4044/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 1

This property was purchased from Mr. Asim Ghosh and Ms. Sanjukta Ghosh on 31.07.2014 for Rs. 42 crores. After claiming depreciation, Written Down Value (WDV) for the year was Rs.37,25,32,589/. Source of funds for purchasing the property was loan taken from Standard Chartered Bank. During the year ... STCL which was disallowed. Table for computation of STCL is as under: Particulars Amount (Rs.) Sale Consideration 18,61,00,000 Less: Written down value of asset -37,25,32,589 Capital Gain/(Loss) (18,64,32,589) 9.2. The said property was used by assessee for its business purpose

OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMTIED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4043/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 1

This property was purchased from Mr. Asim Ghosh and Ms. Sanjukta Ghosh on 31.07.2014 for Rs. 42 crores. After claiming depreciation, Written Down Value (WDV) for the year was Rs.37,25,32,589/. Source of funds for purchasing the property was loan taken from Standard Chartered Bank. During the year ... STCL which was disallowed. Table for computation of STCL is as under: Particulars Amount (Rs.) Sale Consideration 18,61,00,000 Less: Written down value of asset -37,25,32,589 Capital Gain/(Loss) (18,64,32,589) 9.2. The said property was used by assessee for its business purpose

ACIT CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3998/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 1

This property was purchased from Mr. Asim Ghosh and Ms. Sanjukta Ghosh on 31.07.2014 for Rs. 42 crores. After claiming depreciation, Written Down Value (WDV) for the year was Rs.37,25,32,589/. Source of funds for purchasing the property was loan taken from Standard Chartered Bank. During the year ... STCL which was disallowed. Table for computation of STCL is as under: Particulars Amount (Rs.) Sale Consideration 18,61,00,000 Less: Written down value of asset -37,25,32,589 Capital Gain/(Loss) (18,64,32,589) 9.2. The said property was used by assessee for its business purpose

ACIT, CC-6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3995/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 1

This property was purchased from Mr. Asim Ghosh and Ms. Sanjukta Ghosh on 31.07.2014 for Rs. 42 crores. After claiming depreciation, Written Down Value (WDV) for the year was Rs.37,25,32,589/. Source of funds for purchasing the property was loan taken from Standard Chartered Bank. During the year ... STCL which was disallowed. Table for computation of STCL is as under: Particulars Amount (Rs.) Sale Consideration 18,61,00,000 Less: Written down value of asset -37,25,32,589 Capital Gain/(Loss) (18,64,32,589) 9.2. The said property was used by assessee for its business purpose

FRANKLIN TEMPLETON INTERNATIONAL SERVICES (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1495/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2010-11
Section 133(6)Section 92D

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n“K” BENCH, MUMBAI\nBEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER)\n&\nSHRI

FRANKLIN TEMPLETON INTERNATIONAL SERVICES (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 2047/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 133(6)Section 92D

liable to be quashed; Claim for additional depreciation 1. The AO erred in not allowing depreciation of Rs. 7,17,193 on the written down value of assets being items included to block of assets of Computer, Plant and Machinery, Building consequent to disallowance of revenue expenditure in the assessment ... order (Relevant pages attached at Page 108) 1. The AO erred in not allowing depreciation of Rs. 6,24,633 on the written down value of assets being items included to block of assets of Computer, Plant and Machinery, Building consequent to disallowance of revenue expenditure in the assessment orders

HAMEED MARINE PRIVATE LIMITED,EDALAKUDY, NAGERCOIL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, NAGERCOIL, INCOME TAX OFFICE, NAGERCOIL

In the result, Grounds relating to validity of notice u/s 143(2) are dismissed

ITA 2317/CHNY/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Feb 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: 12.01.2026
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 43(1)

issues considered was that "Opening ITA 2317Chny 2025 (A.Y. 2017-18) Hameed Marine Pvt Ltd vs ACIT Nagercoil :: 3 :: Written Down Value of fixed assets as per ITR of current is greater than closing Written Down Value of fixed assets as per ITR of preceding year". In response, the assessee

BANG EQUITY BROKING PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-CIRCLE 4(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7504/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anant N. Pai, CAFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui (SR DR)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 55

sustaining the action of the learned Assessing Officer in not allowing the cost of acquisition of the shares of BSE Ltd at the written down value of the erstwhile BSE Membership card of Rs. 2,33,70,555/- and Rs. 30,000/- paid to BSE Ltd at the time ... taken at Rs, 4,65,47,000/- being the original cost of the erstwhile BSE membership card and not at its written down value. This alternate claim accords with the provisions of section 55 (2)(ab) and had been claimed by way of an additional ground in the appeal before

DIABETOMICS MEDICAL PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee\nare partly allowed

ITA 2149/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19
For Appellant: \nCA MV Prasad AndFor Respondent: \nMS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 56(2)(viib)

only one difference. It was submitted that the\nassessee following the Explanation-2 below section\n50B(3) of the Act has adopted written down value of\nthe block asset in case of the depreciable asset as per\nthe proviso to section 43 of the Act, which the AO has\nomitted

Showing 1–20 of 812 · Page 1 of 41

...