← All Phrases

“written down value”

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

The decision most relied on for written down value is CIT v. P.J. Chemicals Ltd. (210 ITR 830), cited in 158 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on written down value

CIT v. P.J. Chemicals Ltd.
210 ITR 830 · 1994 · Supreme Court
158
citing judgments

This Supreme Court decision clarifies the conditions under which a capital subsidy received by an assessee should be reduced from the 'actual cost' of an asset for computing depreciation under Section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act, depending on whether the subsidy directly meets the cost of the asset.

Amway India Enterprises v. DCIT
111 ITD 112 · 2008 · ITAT
127
citing judgments

Depreciation is allowable on computer software, including software licenses, at the rate of 60%.

Capital Bus Service Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
123 ITR 404 · 1980 · High Court
91
citing judgments

Depreciation under section 32 is allowable even if an asset is not actively used, provided it is kept in a condition of readiness or is put ready for use, as this amounts to passive user.

ACIT v. Progressive Constructions Ltd.
92 Taxmann.com 104 · 2018 · ITAT
63
citing judgments

Rights acquired under a concession agreement for highway construction, which generate revenue through toll collections, constitute an 'intangible asset' under section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, eligible for depreciation, typically at 25%. This includes claiming depreciation on the opening Written Down Value (WDV) for such highway projects.

Paramjit Singh v. ITO
323 ITR 588 · 2010 · High Court
59
citing judgments

A registered sale deed, including the sale consideration disclosed therein, cannot be disregarded or contradicted by oral evidence, as documents containing all terms and conditions preclude such oral testimony.

Kirloskar Investments & Finance Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
67 ITD 504 · 1998 · ITAT
58
citing judgments

Merely providing a copy of a statement or letters is not sufficient opportunity; when oral evidence is relied upon to replace written evidence, the party against whom it is used must be allowed to cross-examine the person concerned to properly weigh the evidence.

CIT v. Shreyas S. Morakhia
342 ITR 285 · 2012 · High Court
48
citing judgments

For a share broker, the unrealised value of shares from clients or other trade balances written off is deductible as a bad debt under section 36(1)(vii) if the corresponding income was previously recognized. This principle applies to bad debts arising from revenue transactions, not capital loans.

South Indian Bank Ltd. v. CIT
262 ITR 579 · 2003 · High Court
48
citing judgments

For banks, bad debts written off from non-rural advances are not subject to the limitations of the provisos to sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viii), as these provisos apply only to rural advances; section 36(1)(viia) also applies exclusively to rural advances. Additionally, depreciation on investments valued at market price on the balance sheet date is eligible for deduction.

Judgments citing written down value

Deputy Commissioner of Incometax, Chennai vs. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai

ITA 1488/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1279/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Cholamandalam Ms General- V. The Dcit, Insurance Co. Ltd., Non Corporate Circle-8, Dare House, 2Nd Floor, Chennai. No.2, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai-600 001. [Pan: Aabcc 6633 K] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1338/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Dcit, Non Corporate Circle-8, Chennai. V. M/S. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd., Dare House, 2Nd Floor, No.2, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai-600 001. [Pan: Aabcc 6633 K] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1280/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Cholamandalam Ms General- Insurance Co. Ltd., Dare House, 2Nd Floor, No.2, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai-600 001. [Pan: Aabcc 6633 K] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Non Corporate Circle-8, Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 115J

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'ए' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH: CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Non Corp Circle 8, Chennai

ITA 1281/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1279/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Cholamandalam Ms General- V. The Dcit, Insurance Co. Ltd., Non Corporate Circle-8, Dare House, 2Nd Floor, Chennai. No.2, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai-600 001. [Pan: Aabcc 6633 K] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1338/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Dcit, Non Corporate Circle-8, Chennai. V. M/S. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd., Dare House, 2Nd Floor, No.2, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai-600 001. [Pan: Aabcc 6633 K] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1280/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Cholamandalam Ms General- Insurance Co. Ltd., Dare House, 2Nd Floor, No.2, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai-600 001. [Pan: Aabcc 6633 K] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Non Corporate Circle-8, Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 115J

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'ए' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH: CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Non Corp Circle 8, Chennai

ITA 1279/CHNY/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1279/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Cholamandalam Ms General- Insurance Co. Ltd., Dare House, 2Nd Floor, No.2, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai-600 001. [Pan: Aabcc 6633 K] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Non Corporate Circle-8, Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1338/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Dcit, Non Corporate Circle-8, Chennai. V. M/S. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd., Dare House, 2Nd Floor, No.2, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai-600 001. [Pan: Aabcc 6633 K] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1280/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Cholamandalam Ms General- Insurance Co. Ltd., Dare House, 2Nd Floor, No.2, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai-600 001. [Pan: Aabcc 6633 K] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Non Corporate Circle-8, Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 115J

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'ए' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH: CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक

S S Group P.Ltd, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as above

ITA 7691/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.7691/Del/2018, A.Y. 2015-16 Ita No.8950/Del/2019, A.Y. 2016-17 M/S. S S Group (P) Ltd. Assistant Commissioner Of C/O Rra Taxindia Income Tax, Circle-4(1) D-28, South Extension Part-1 Vs. Income Tax Office, New Delhi-110049 Hsiidc Building, Pan: Aapcs5288Q Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Somil Agarwal, Advocate Shri Deepesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By Ms. Jaya Chaudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 18/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12/03/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am Since Issues Involved In These Appeals Were Identical; Hence, These Cases Were Heard Together. Accordingly, These Appeals Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

Section 234ASection 32(1)Section 40A(3)Section 43(6)(c)

depreciation is allowable on goodwill acquired/created pursuant to the scheme of amalgamation. The Ld. CIT(A), placing emphasis on the definition of written down value under section 43(6)(c) read with the Explanation 2 to Section 32(1) of the Act, held that the actual cost of the goodwill ... that there cost of acquisition of goodwill in the hands of amalgamated company; i.e. the appellant assessee was NIL as there was no written down value of the goodwill in the books of accounts of amalgamating company; i.e. North Star Apartment Pvt. Ltd. Placing emphasis on the 6th proviso

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Bbc World India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 3489/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahmandcit, Circle 7 (1), Vs. Fmi Automotive Components Private Limited, Delhi. Plot No.1, Subplot 4, 5, 8 & 9 Msil, Supplier Park, Phase 3A, Imt Manesar, Gurgaon – 1222 050 (Haryana). (Pan :Aabcf1682P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By :Shri S.K. Agarwal, Ca Revenue By :Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2025 Date Of Order : 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Revenue Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 30.05.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Nfac Has Erred In Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee By Deleting The Addition Made By The Ao Amounting To Rs.5,90,59,019/- On Account Of Disallowance Of Foreign Exchange Loss On Account Of Plant & Machinery.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 41

short ‘the Act’). The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS with the reasons “Opening Written Down Value of fixed assets as per ITR of current year is greater than closing Written Down Value of fixed assets as per ITR of preceding year; Large “any other

Ashwani Gupta, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(4), Chandigarh

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 867/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.867/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Ashwani Gupta Ito-Ward No. 5(4) Railway Station Road, Dariya, Chandigarh-160017 बनाम/ Vs. Chandigarh-160002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Agtpk-4921-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11-03-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13-03-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 20-06-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 19-12-2019. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is Confirmation Of Disallowance Of Short Term Capital Loss Of Rs.47.33 Lacs. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under.

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

before 31-03-2017. These machineries were held as business assets on which depreciation was being claimed by the assessee. The machineries had written down value of Rs.92.73 Lacs and sold for Rs.45.40 Lacs which resulted into STCL of Rs.47.33 Lacs. 3. During appellate proceedings, the assessee stated that

Balaji Udyog, Jalgaon vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Jalgaon

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

ITA 1501/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1501/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Balaji Udyog, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Jalgaon. J-81, Midc Area, Jalgaon- 425003. Pan : Aagfb2522E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vinay Kawadia Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 23.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.05.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1) Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Cit(A). Nfac Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Interest Paid To Partners Amounting To Rs.19,23,457/- U/S 40(B) Of The Act. He Specifically Erred In Law In Recasting The Capital Accounts Of The Partners On Account Of Non-Provision Of Depreciation In Books Of Account. 2) The Ld. Cit(A) Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding Disallowance Of Rs.1,13,286/-Being 10% Of The Various Expenses Debited To Profit & Loss Account.

For Appellant: Shri Vinay KawadiaFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 274Section 32(1)Section 40

apply as if the said structure or work is a building owned by the assessee. Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this clause "written down value of the block of assets" shall have the same meaning as in clause (c) of sub-section (6) of section 43. Explanation