← 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

Diabetomics Medical Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee

ITA 2148/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: CA MV Prasad AndFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 56(2)(viib)

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

Diabetomics Medical Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee

ITA 2147/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: CA MV Prasad AndFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 56(2)(viib)

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

Repro India Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7605/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarrepro India Limited Acit Circle 11Th Floor, B Wing, Sun 8(1)(1), Paradise Business Plaza, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr0379J (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Umashankar Prasad, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2026

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250

well as the revised return of income was arrived at on the basis of apportionment of the composite sale consideration by adopting the written down value of various assets, whereas, in the rectified computation submitted before the Assessing Officer, the sale consideration of Rs. 11,76,46,508/- represented ... also placed on records the erroneous the asset-wise working for allocation of sale consideration with reference to the written down value of assets sold, as emerging from the depreciation records for the previous year relevant to AY 2022– 23. 22. The learned AR pointed out, in brief, that

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2 1 1 Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Gujarat Mineral Development Co Rporation Limited, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2523/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 37(1)

under the normal provisions of the Act. 4.2. The assessee also claimed additional depreciation of Rs.45,21,271/- and requested to revise the Written Down Value of the block of assets pertaining to Civil work of Windmill. This revision was demanded because the depreciation claimed at 80% in previous year

Income Tax Officer, Coimbatore vs. Acl Industries Limited, Coimbatore

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

ITA 2592/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K (Vice President), SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CITFor Respondent: None
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

evidence for sale of machineries and furniture & fixtures. Therefore, the AO estimated the sale consideration at Rs.5,01,29,085/- which was the written down value as on 01.04.2015. Accordingly, the AO disallowed loss of Rs.3,92,54,617/- in computing the short-term capital gains on sale of immovable

DCIT., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad vs. South Asian Ceramic Tiles Private Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 1228/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2026AY 2022-23
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69

loss was unusual; and (iii) that there was a substantial addition/introduction of tangible assets during the year which was significantly more than the written down value (WDV) on the first day of previous year as per the Income Tax Return filed by the assessee company. Also, the value

Kovalam Resort Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 6580/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 6580/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) 2. Ita No. 6578/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. Ita No. 6579/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Kovalam Resort Private Dcit 2(1)(1), Limited 561, Aayakar The Leela, Sahar, Andheri Vs. Bhavan, M. K. East, Mumbai-400 059 Road, Mumbai- 400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaeck4804H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Dharan Gandi & Shri Ravi Gupta, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Ritesh Misra, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2026

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

assessee claimed depreciation aggregating to Rs. 25,86,15,073/- on the assets so acquired. The Assessing Officer then examined the written down values of the same assets in the books of M/s Hotel Leela Ventures Ltd. as on the date of transfer, which were as under: Particulars ... allocated to land and building and that the building, being a depreciable asset, could not be valued at an amount higher than its written down value in the hands of the transferor. 11. The Assessing Officer held that depreciation under the Income-tax Act is intended to account for wear

Kovalam Resort Private Limtied, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 6579/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 6580/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) 2. Ita No. 6578/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. Ita No. 6579/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Kovalam Resort Private Dcit 2(1)(1), Limited 561, Aayakar The Leela, Sahar, Andheri Vs. Bhavan, M. K. East, Mumbai-400 059 Road, Mumbai- 400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaeck4804H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Dharan Gandi & Shri Ravi Gupta, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Ritesh Misra, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2026

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

assessee claimed depreciation aggregating to Rs. 25,86,15,073/- on the assets so acquired. The Assessing Officer then examined the written down values of the same assets in the books of M/s Hotel Leela Ventures Ltd. as on the date of transfer, which were as under: Particulars ... allocated to land and building and that the building, being a depreciable asset, could not be valued at an amount higher than its written down value in the hands of the transferor. 11. The Assessing Officer held that depreciation under the Income-tax Act is intended to account for wear

Kovalam Resort Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6578/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

assessee claimed depreciation aggregating to Rs. 25,86,15,073/- on the assets so acquired. The Assessing Officer then examined the written down values of the same assets in the books of M/s Hotel Leela Ventures Ltd. as on the date of transfer, which were as under: Particulars ... allocated to land and building and that the building, being a depreciable asset, could not be valued at an amount higher than its written down value in the hands of the transferor. 11. The Assessing Officer held that depreciation under the Income-tax Act is intended to account for wear

Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Mumbai vs. ITO (42)(1)(2), Kautilya Bhavan

Appeal are disposed of partly in

ITA 4728/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 44A

deemed to have been already given full effect to and no further deduction under those sections shall be allowed. (3) The written down value of any asset used for the purposes of profession shall be deemed to have been calculated as if the assessee had claimed and had been actually

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Lighthouse Learning Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 5433/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 14ASection 250Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)

Also, there is no doubt that the said goodwill was used for the purpose of business. Therefore Depreciation was to be allowed on "written down value". The written down value is defined u/s 43(6) of the Income Tax Act. Clause (a) says that "written down value", in case ... Accountant. Also, there is no doubt that said goodwill is used for the purpose of business. The Depreciation is to be allowed on "written down value". The written down value is defined u/s 43(6) of the Income Tax Act. Clause (a) says that "written down value", in case

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 1(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Hindustan Unilever Limited, Mumbai

ITA 929/MUM/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR
Section 10BSection 145ASection 14ASection 250Section 80Section 801BSection 80H

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Hindustan Unilever Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy.CIT-1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue and cross-objection by the

ITA 1041/MUM/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR
Section 10BSection 145ASection 14ASection 250Section 80Section 801BSection 80HSection 8O

raised in the assessee’s appeal, pertains to the computation of depreciation after reducing the capital subsidy received by the assessee from the Written Down Value (“WDV"). 74. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from the record, are: During the year under consideration

Incometax Officer, Chennai vs. Doosan Bobcat Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the CO of assessee is dismissed as not-pressed

ITA 2288/CHNY/2025[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2288/Chny/2025 & C.O No.76/Chny/2025 (Arising In Ita No.2288/Chny/2025) िनधा%रण वष% /Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, Doosan Bobcat Pvt. Ltd., Htc Towers, 6Th Floor, Corporate Ward-2(1), Vs. Chennai. No.41, Gst Road, Guindy Industrial Estate S.O., Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. Pan: Aaccd 6529L

For Respondent: Mr. Praveen.S, JCIT
Section 250Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

Section 43(1) of the Act, the assessee had claimed ITA No.2288/Chny/2025 & C.O No.76/Chny/2025 Doosan Bobcat Pvt. Ltd. :- 6 -: depreciation on the written down value as recorded in the books of account post merger. The Ld. AR submitted that the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case ... been claiming depreciation on the same. In the books of the assessee-company, the intangible assets are recorded post merger at the written down value and the assessee has been claiming depreciation on the same from A.Y 2012-13. We in this regard notice that the Co-ordinate Bench

Bajaj Auto Limited, Mumbai vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax - 3, Mumbai

ITA 2666/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry ()

For Appellant: Mr. P.J. Pardiwala a/wFor Respondent: Mr. Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 145(2)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI NARENDER

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 1 1, Chennai vs. Fl Smith Private Limited, Kanchipuram

ITA 1763/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1682/Chny/2024 & Co No.71/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.: 1682/Chny/2024) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. Flsmidth Private Limited, Vs. 34Th Egatoor, Flsmidth House, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram – 603 103. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aaacf-4997-N] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/ Cross Objector) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1731 & 1763/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. Flsmidth Private Limited, Vs. 34Th Egatoor, Flsmidth House, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram – 603 103. [Pan: Aaacf-4997-N] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Department By : Shri. P.M.Kathir, Advocate & Shri S.P.Chidambaram, Advocate : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O Rder : 15.12.2025 : 21.01.2026 Per Bench: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai (In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”) Against Orders U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 92Ca(3) R.W.S 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act') For The

For Respondent: Shri. P.M.Kathir, Advocate and
Section 143(3)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)

Smirfs Securities Limited (2012) has only held that goodwill is a depreciable asset and not about the value of asset or written down value that is to be considered for the purpose of allowing the depreciation. vii. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider the provision of Explanation

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Corporate Circle 1-1, Chennai vs. Fl Smidth Private Limited, Kanchipuram

ITA 1731/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1682/Chny/2024 & Co No.71/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.: 1682/Chny/2024) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. Flsmidth Private Limited, Vs. 34Th Egatoor, Flsmidth House, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram – 603 103. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aaacf-4997-N] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/ Cross Objector) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1731 & 1763/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. Flsmidth Private Limited, Vs. 34Th Egatoor, Flsmidth House, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram – 603 103. [Pan: Aaacf-4997-N] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Assessee By Department By : Shri. P.M.Kathir, Advocate & Shri S.P.Chidambaram, Advocate : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O Rder : 15.12.2025 : 21.01.2026 Per Bench: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai (In Short "Ld.Cit(A)") Against Orders U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 92Ca(3) R.W.S 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The 'Act') For The

For Respondent: Shri. P.M.Kathir, Advocate and
Section 143(3)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)

Smirfs Securities Limited (2012) has only held that goodwill is a depreciable asset and not about the value of asset or written down value that is to be considered for the purpose of allowing the depreciation. vii. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider the provision of Explanation

Assisstant Commisioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 1 1, Chennai vs. Fl Smith Private Limited, Kanchipuram

ITA 1682/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1682/Chny/2024 & Co No.71/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.: 1682/Chny/2024) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. Flsmidth Private Limited, Vs. 34Th Egatoor, Flsmidth House, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram – 603 103. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aaacf-4997-N] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/ Cross Objector) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1731 & 1763/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. Flsmidth Private Limited, Vs. 34Th Egatoor, Flsmidth House, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram – 603 103. [Pan: Aaacf-4997-N] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Assessee By Department By : Shri. P.M.Kathir, Advocate & Shri S.P.Chidambaram, Advocate : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O Rder : 15.12.2025 : 21.01.2026 Per Bench: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai (In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”) Against Orders U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 92Ca(3) R.W.S 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act') For The

For Respondent: Shri. P.M.Kathir, Advocate and
Section 143(3)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)

Smirfs Securities Limited (2012) has only held that goodwill is a depreciable asset and not about the value of asset or written down value that is to be considered for the purpose of allowing the depreciation. vii. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider the provision of Explanation

Colour Creation Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-4(2), Delhi

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

ITA 2418/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shrisatbeer Singh Godara & Shri Shris.Rifaur Rahmancolour Creation Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax A-49, Naraina Industrial Area, Circle 4(2), Central Revenue Building, Phase-1, New Delhi-110028. I P Estate, New Delhi-110002. (Pan No. Aaecc0920A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Ajay Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2025 Date Of Order : 21.01.2026 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: The Assesse Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Addl/Jcit-7, Mumbai Dated 13.02.2025 For Assessment Year 2017-18, Wherein The Assesse Has Raised Following Grounds:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Learned Cit (Appeals) Nfac Is Bad, Both In The Eye Of Law & On The Facts. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Learned Cit (Appeals) Nfac Has Erred Both On Facts & In Law In Passing The Order Without Giving Assessee A Proper & Adequate Opportunity Of Being Heard In Clear Violation Of Principle Of Natural Justice. 3.(I). On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit (Appeals) Nfac Has Erred, Both On Facts & In Law, In Confirming The Assessment Order, Assessing The Loss Of The Assesseers. 11,10,00,840/- As Against The Returned Loss Of Rs. 11,13,22,840/-.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Arora, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

applicability of section 56(2)(viib) or any other relevant section, reduction in profit because of application of income computation & disclosure standers , 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

Amit Bholanath Mishra, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 22(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7219/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokaramit Bholanath Mishra Acit Circle 22(1), 502, Heena Elegance, Piramal Chamber, Saibaba Nagar, Borivali Vs. Lal Baug, Parel, (West), Mumbai-400 092 Mumbai-400 012 Pan/Gir No. Aampm3121G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rakesh Joshi, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.01.2026

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 50Section 70

short-term capital gain or loss. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer recomputed depreciation for the relevant earlier years, recalculated the written down value of the motor cars and determined a net short-term capital loss of Rs. 2,25,366/- from the sale of both vehicles. The said short-term capital ... challenged the action of the Assessing Officer in applying depreciation on motor cars at the rate of 30 percent, recomputing depreciation and opening written down value for earlier assessment years which had attained finality, and disallowing the set-off of short-term capital loss on sale of motor cars against