← 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

ACIT Circle 8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Ganjam Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross

ITA 458/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan: A.Y. : 2018-19 C.O. No. 99/Mum/2024 : A.Y. : 2018-19 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 458/M/24)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate &For Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 2Section 32

provisions, in some situations (like that of business reorganization) there could be no depreciation on account of actual cost being zero and the written down value of that assets in the hand of predecessor/amalgamating company being zero. 8 C.O.No. 99/Mum/2024 However, in some other cases (like that of acquisition ... asset for the assessment year beginning on the 1st April, 2020 and depreciation has been obtained by the assessee under the Act, the written down value of that block of asset and short term capital gain, if any, shall be determined in the manner as may be prescribed. (d) amend

Indus Towers Limited (Formerly Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd and As Successor in Interest of Erstwhile Indus Tower Ltd), Gurugram, Haryana vs. DCIT, Circle 12(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2762/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 148

cost to the previous owner as reduced by the depreciation that would have been allowable to the assessee. In other words, the tax written down value ('WDV') of the assets in the hands of the transferor/ donor is considered as the 'actual cost' of such gifted assets in the hands ... treating the scheme as one of the “demerger” u/s 2(19AA) of the Act thereby restricting the claim of depreciation only on written down value of assets being transferred from PSCL to Ponni Sugars (Erode) Ltd. Hon‟ble High Court held that the order sanctioning scheme of arrangement

ACIT, Circle 10, New Delhi vs. Indus Tower Limited, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2212/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 148

cost to the previous owner as reduced by the depreciation that would have been allowable to the assessee. In other words, the tax written down value ('WDV') of the assets in the hands of the transferor/ donor is considered as the 'actual cost' of such gifted assets in the hands ... treating the scheme as one of the “demerger” u/s 2(19AA) of the Act thereby restricting the claim of depreciation only on written down value of assets being transferred from PSCL to Ponni Sugars (Erode) Ltd. Hon‟ble High Court held that the order sanctioning scheme of arrangement

Indus Towers Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT Circle 12(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1962/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 148

cost to the previous owner as reduced by the depreciation that would have been allowable to the assessee. In other words, the tax written down value ('WDV') of the assets in the hands of the transferor/ donor is considered as the 'actual cost' of such gifted assets in the hands ... treating the scheme as one of the “demerger” u/s 2(19AA) of the Act thereby restricting the claim of depreciation only on written down value of assets being transferred from PSCL to Ponni Sugars (Erode) Ltd. Hon‟ble High Court held that the order sanctioning scheme of arrangement

Madurai Power Corporation Private Limited, Chennai vs. PCIT, Corp Circle 4(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1396/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. N.V.Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 263Section 801ASection 80I

than 75% in case of coal fired and 80% in case of oil/gas fired boiler) are eligible for depreciation allowance of 80% of written down value. However, the assessee has claimed only 15% depreciation, there by the assessee is claiming excess deduction u/s.80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Further ... only 15% depreciation on the Higher Efficiency Boilers (being energy saving device), when it was eligible for depreciation allowance of 80% on the Written Down Value (WDV). The AO alleged that the assessee was claiming less depreciation on the Higher Efficiency Boilers in order to claim higher/excess deduction u/s.80IA

Tarsem Bharti, Shimla vs. ITO, Ward-2, Shimla

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

ITA 102/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarsem BhartiFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

matter. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and purused the material available on record. The relevant details in terms of opening written down value, the additions to different block of assets and period of usage and claim of depreciation is evident from the return of income

Dow Chemical International Private Limited, Thane vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - 14(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 3772/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. AR /
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Dow Chemicals International Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Ta-14(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1200/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. AR /
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

3A Composites India Private Limied, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4096/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 43(6)Section 50C

against the actual sale consideration of Rs.2,45,00,000/-. The assessee claimed depreciation on the remaining value of the written down value of the block of building after reducing the actual sale consideration of Rs.2,45,00,000/- and claimed depreciation of Rs.1,81,36,734/-. The working ... created only for the purpose of computing capital gain on sale of capital assets and not for computing the written down value for claiming deprecation under the head 'profits and gains of the business'. However, the ld. CIT(A) did not accept the contention of the assessee

Bani Broto Banerjee, Kolkata vs. CIT(A), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 520/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 520/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Bani Broto Banerjee,…………………..…………Appellant Sanskriti, Flat – 3A, 148, Rashbehari Avenue, Near Deshapriya Park, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Abppb0424P] -Vs.- Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals),……Respondent Aayakar Bhawan Dakshin, 2, Gariahat Road (South), Kolkata-700031 Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Smt. Ranu Bisws, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 24, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 18, 2024 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 48Section 57

capital gain assessable in his hand. He has claimed two amounts in the long-term capital gain calculated by him, namely- (a) written down value of the cost of furniture aggregating to Rs.1,30,23,709/-; (b) interest expenditure of Rs.1,90,78,228/-. These two expenses have been claimed

DCIT 1 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Hindustan Unilever Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and Revenue are partly

ITA 6913/MUM/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar a/wFor Respondent: Shri Azhar Zain Vayal Parambath
Section 80HSection 80I

given to the victims of Tsunami. 8. Ground Nos.11 and 12 urged by the assessee is related to the claim of enhancement of Written Down Value (WDV) of assets by the amount of Insurance claim not received. Since the Ld.CIT(A) granted partial relief to the assessee in this matter ... issue is related to the determination of WDV of block of assets of Plant & Machinery. Sec.43(6)(c) of the Act defines the “Written Down Value” as under:- (6)"written down value" means- (c) in the case of any block of assets,- () in respect of any previous year relevant

Hindusthan Unilever Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Range 1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and Revenue are partly

ITA 6783/MUM/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar a/wFor Respondent: Shri Azhar Zain Vayal Parambath
Section 80HSection 80I

given to the victims of Tsunami. 8. Ground Nos.11 and 12 urged by the assessee is related to the claim of enhancement of Written Down Value (WDV) of assets by the amount of Insurance claim not received. Since the Ld.CIT(A) granted partial relief to the assessee in this matter ... issue is related to the determination of WDV of block of assets of Plant & Machinery. Sec.43(6)(c) of the Act defines the “Written Down Value” as under:- (6)"written down value" means- (c) in the case of any block of assets,- () in respect of any previous year relevant

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax CC-5(2), Mumbai vs. Jet Privilege Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals for AY 2015-16 to 2018-19 & 2021-22 of the assessee, revenue, and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2325/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 32(1)

Explanation 2.—For computing the net 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

Jet Privilege Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax CC-5(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals for AY 2015-16 to 2018-19 & 2021-22 of the assessee, revenue, and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2287/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 32(1)

Explanation 2.—For computing the net 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

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax CC-5(2), Mumbai vs. Jet Privilege Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals for AY 2015-16 to 2018-19 & 2021-22 of the assessee, revenue, and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2163/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 32(1)

Explanation 2.—For computing the net 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

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax CC-5(2), Mumbai vs. Jet Privilege Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals for AY 2015-16 to 2018-19 & 2021-22 of the assessee, revenue, and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2162/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 32(1)

Explanation 2.—For computing the net 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

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax CC-5(2), Mumbai vs. Jet Privilege Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals for AY 2015-16 to 2018-19 & 2021-22 of the assessee, revenue, and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2161/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 32(1)

Explanation 2.—For computing the net 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

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax CC-5(2), Mumbai vs. Jet Privilege Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals for AY 2015-16 to 2018-19 & 2021-22 of the assessee, revenue, and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2160/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 32(1)

Explanation 2.—For computing the net 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

Jet Privilege Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5(2) (Ershtwhile Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax-10(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals for AY 2015-16 to 2018-19 & 2021-22 of the assessee, revenue, and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1956/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 32(1)

Explanation 2.—For computing the net 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

Jet Privilege Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5(2) (Ershtwhile Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax-10(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals for AY 2015-16 to 2018-19 & 2021-22 of the assessee, revenue, and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1955/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 32(1)

Explanation 2.—For computing the net 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