“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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sonia Pathak Khanna, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-25(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1193/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Income Tax Officer, Sonia Pathak Khanna, Ward 25(1)(2) Flat No.14, 5Th Floor, Room No. 204, 2Nd Floor, Kodinar, Model Town, Off Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- J.P. Road, Four Bungalows, 43 Vs. Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 G Block, Bandra Kurla 053 Complex, Bandra(E), Mumbai-051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpp6359C Assessee By : Shri K Gopal, Ar : Shri R.R. Makwana, Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing: 13.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri K Gopal, AR

Section 143(3)Section 541Section 54F

building which is owned by the assessee in respect of which depreciation is claimed is sold, the excess of sale price over the written down value to the difference between actual cost and written down value shall be chargeable to income tax as income of the business of the previous ... allowed to the assessee shall be chargeable to tax as business income. 019. According to Section 50, excess realized by the assessee against Written-down value of the block of asset shall be deemed to be the capital gain arising from the short term capital asset. Thus, the benefit

Palanisamy Rani, Erode vs. PCIT-1, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1490/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1490/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Principal Commissioner Of Palanisamy Rani, V. Income Tax, 38, Emm Road-2, Chennimalai Coimbatore. Road, Erode – 638 001. [Pan:Biqpr-2991-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

which depreciation was allowed in any previous year; the provisions of sections 48 and 49 shall apply subject to the modification that the written down value of the asset, as adjusted, :-9-: ITA. No:1490/Chny/2023 shall be taken as the cost of acquisition. Relying on this provision the Tribunal held ... during the A Y 2017-18 and the cost of acquisition was denied since, the building value has been completely depreciated and the Written down value of the Asset in the hands of the previous owner was NIL. This action of the AO, interfered by the Ld.PCIT exercising his jurisdiction

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Gujarat Insecticides Limited, Ankleshwar

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1035/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Asstt.Commissioner Of Gujarat Insecticides Limited Income Tax Vs Plot No.805/806, Gidc Estate Circle-2(1)(1) Ankleshwar Vadodara Bharuch – 393 002 Pan: Aaacg 8436 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) … "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Arti Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25/06/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)”) Dated 19/10/2023, Arising Out Of An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”) Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. Facts Of The Case: The Acit Vs. Gujarat Insecticides Ltd. Asst. Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Ms. Arti Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 31Section 32(1)(ia)

section 32(1)(iia) of the Income-tax Act for the Assessment Years 2007-2008, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 on the opening Written Down Value [WDV] of the plant and machinery purchased in the earlier years. The Assessing Officer further observed that the assessee had claimed the additional depreciation

Parisons Foods Private Ltd, Calicut vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Kozhikode

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

ITA 229/COCH/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Jun 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.(Through Virtual Hearing) Parisons Foods Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle - 1(1) 6/1183, Kunhipari Buildins Kozhikode Calicut 673032 Vs. Pan – Aaccp2898J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Surendranath Rao, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ilaiyaraja, K.S., Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.06.2024 O R D E R Per: Soundararajan K., J.M. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Challenges The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Cit(A)) Dated 01.02.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2005-06. 2. The Assessee Is In The Business Of Refining & Sale Of Crude Edible Oil & Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.10.2005 & The Assessment Was Completed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act By Accepting The Returns. Subsequently The Cit Invoked His Suo Moto Revision Powers Under Section 263 Of The Act To Disallow The Additional Depreciation Claimed U/S 32(1)(Iia) Of The Act & Directed The Ao To Complete The Assessment De Novo By Considering The Claim Of Additional Depreciation Of 15%. Thereafter The Ld. Ao

For Appellant: Shri Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ilaiyaraja, K.S., Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 32(1)(iia)

opinion that additional depreciation was not allowable, then he should have added the amount of additional depreciation claimed to the closing Written Down Value (WDV) as on 31.03.2005 and allowed depreciation for the succeeding years on the enhanced WDV which should have been automatic.” 4. At the time of hearing ... made an alternate argument that, if the above argument is not accepted the additional depreciation should be added to the written down value and depreciation should be granted on the enhanced value in the succeeding years. The learned A.R. also filed a paper book enclosing the New Industrial Undertaking certificate

Technical Associates Limited, Lucknow vs. DCIT, Range-3, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 228/LKW/2023[AY 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri G. D. Padamahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2015-16 Technical Associates Limited V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income 8Th Km, Faizabad Road Tax Vijaypur, Gomti Nagar Range 6 Lucknow Lucknow Pan:Aabct7365F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Santhosh Kumar Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 25 06 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25 06 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Santhosh KumarFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R

Section 32(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)

year, exceeds the aggregate of the following amounts, namely: i. expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transferor transfers; ii. the written down value of the block of assets at the beginning of the previous year, and iii. the actual cost of any asset falling within the block ... transferred during the previous year, the cost of acquisition of the block of ITA No.228/LKW/2023 Page 6 of 7 assets shall be the written down value of the block of assets at the beginning of the previous year, as increased by the actual cost of any asset falling within that

Bajaj Holdngs & Investment Ltd ( Erstwhile Bajaj Auto Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3043/MUM/2010[2002-013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2002-013

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhbajaj Holdings & Vs. Additional Commissioner Investment Ltd. Of Income-Tax, Range 3(1) Erstwile Bajaj Auto Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, Bajaj Bhavan, 226, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Dcit-3(4) Vs. M/S Bajaj Holding & Room No. 481-2, 4Th Floor, Investment Limited Aaykar Bhavan, (Erstwhile Bajaj Auto Ltd) Mumbai – 400020 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Percy Pardiwala & Vasanti Patel Respondent By : Ankush Kapoor

For Appellant: Percy Pardiwala &For Respondent: Ankush Kapoor

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)

earlier year by dismissing the revenue ground in AY 1996-97. During the year under consideration, BAL has claimed depreciation on the opening written down value of the block which includes the above assets. Once depreciation allowed in earlier year and such asset forms part of block of assets, depreciation

Addl CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Auto Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2899/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2002-03

For Appellant: Percy Pardiwala &For Respondent: Ankush Kapoor

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)

DCIT 9(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Afcons Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the C

ITA 4798/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri / Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sudhakar Naik, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 36(1)(iii)

Pauling JV, Afcons Strabag AG, and Afcons Gunanusa JV – Ground Nos. 5 & 6. (iii) Disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 0.64 lacs on the written down value of Speed Boat of Rs. 4.27 lacs – Ground No. 7 (iv) Disallowance of Professional Fee of Rs. 64.33 lacs paid for Arbitration Award – Ground ... Ground No.5 & 6 raised by the Revenue in this regard are dismissed. Disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 0.64 lacs on the written down value of Speed Boat of Rs. 4.27 lacs – Ground No. 7 17. We heard the parties. We notice that this is a recurring issue and that

Income Tax Officer 41(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Ajjay Agarwal (HUF), Mumbai

In the result, ITA No.4295/Mum/2023 of revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4295/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Dr. K. ShivaramFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT, DR

Section 10ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 250

relation to the profits and gains of the undertaking; and (iv) in computing the depreciation allowance under section 32, the written down value of any asset used for the purposes of the business of the undertaking shall be computed as if the assessee had claimed and been actually allowed

Keventer Agro Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 4(1), Kolkata

ITA 396/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 37(1)Section 43B

statement of income and reduced the depreciation by the amount as worked out as per written down value of the assets under the income tax Act for an amount of Rs.1,84,61,661/-. We also find that the depreciation under the income tax act was calculated

Ifb Automotive Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 12(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 212/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 212/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ifb Automotive Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income Plot No. Ind-V, Sector-1 Vs Tax, Circle - 12(1), Kolkata East Kolkata Township Kasba Industrial Estate Kolkata - 700107 [Pan : Aabci2766H] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Swapan Kumar Bera, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 12/12/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Income Tax Department, Delhi Has Erred In Law As Well As In Facts In Confirming The Disallowance & Addition Made By The Ld. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-12(L), Kolkata (Assessing Officer) On Account Of Profit On Sale Of Fixed Assets Of Rs. 41,61,190/- Ignoring The Provisions Under Section 50 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law As Well As In Facts In Confirming The Disallowance & Addition Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer On Account Of 2

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Swapan Kumar Bera, JCIT, Sr. D/R

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 50

sale of Fixed Assets of Rs. 41,61,190/-, as sum of the following two has not exceeded the aggregate value of written down value of the respective block of Depreciable Fixed Assets at the beginning and cost of acquisition under that block of Depreciable Fixed Assets acquired during ... profit and loss account because the adjustment of the same has already been considered in the fixed asset chart and the written down value has been impacted accordingly. 6.1. Second part of the issue is the loss on account of discarded and written off fixed assets at Rs.41

Manoj Ishwar Choudhary, Mumbai vs. ACIT 24(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with above directions

ITA 102/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm Manoj Ishwar Choudhary 601, B Morya House, Acit 24(2) A Wing, Veera Industrial Estate Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. Oshiwara Link Road Mumbai-400 012 Andheri West Mumbai-400 053 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Adepc1565F Assessee By : None : Shri Mahita Nair, Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2024

For Appellant: None

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 50C

same was not furnished. Accordingly, the learned Assessing Officer computed the short term capital gain of ₹80,55,553/- considering the opening Written Down Value of the block assets at ₹ 1,06,99,447/-. The assessment order was Manoj Ishwar Choudhary; A.Y. 12-13 passed under Section

Novartis India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 7(1), Mumbai

ITA 2308/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 37(1)Section 41(3)Section 80H

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “J” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ACIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai vs. Novartis India ( Formelry Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, (i) the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose (ii) the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and (iii) the Cross Objections filed by the assessee ...

ITA 2188/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal & Co 76/Mum/2013 (A.Y 2003-04) Novartis India Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income–Tax–14(1)(1) Inspire Bkc, 7Th Floor, Room No 432, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhawan, Bandra (E) M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan/Gir No. Aaach2914F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Vs. Novartis India Limited Of Income–Tax–14(1)(1) Inspire Bkc, 7Th Floor, Room No 432, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhawan, Bandra (E) M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400020 Pan/Gir No. Aaach2914F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 37(1)Section 41(3)Section 80H

High Court dated 25 July 1997. 23 It was submitted that as per section 32 of the Act, depreciation is allowable on the written down value of the block of assets. Section 43(6) defines the expression written down value as under: - “written down value" means— (a) in the case ... under any executive orders issued when the Indian Income-tax Act, 1886 (2 of 1886), was in force: Provided that in determining the written down value in respect of buildings, machinery or plant for the purposes of clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 32, "depreciation

DCIT, Central Circle-02, Delhi, Jhandewalan vs. Otsuka Chemical India Pvt. Ltd., Abhinash Mansion

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2501/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Anup Mehta, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Anshul, Sr. DR

Section 270ASection 28Section 9

been levied by the Assessing Officer after observing that the assessee has filed wrong details with regard to the opening written down value (WDV) of fixed asset as per ITR of current year and closing WDV of the fixed assets as per the ITR of the preceding year. During ... before the Assessing Officer is as under: “Regarding difference between opening WDV of fixed assets as per ITR of current year and closing written down value of fixed assets as per ITR of the preceding year, it is submitted that closing WDV of fixed assets as per return form

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl. CIT - 10 (1), Mumbai

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6025/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Bleand

Section 42(1)(a)Section 80Section 80I

facts show that the assessee has classified drainage and railway siding as plant and machinery and accordingly claimed depreciation @15% on the opening written down value and additions. Page No. 52 ITA NO. 6025 & 5979/MUM/2016 (A. Y: 2011-12) CO NO. 31/MUM/2018 M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., 86. While scrutinizing ... 5979/MUM/2016 (A. Y: 2011-12) CO NO. 31/MUM/2018 M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., possible to quantify the opening written down value of these assets, " Book profits under provisions of section 115JB 2. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in dismissing the following ground as not pressed: "Provision for un-availed

DCIT - 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Indian Oil Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5979/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Bleand

Section 42(1)(a)Section 80Section 80I

Bhusawal Cable Network Pvt Ltd, Jalgaon vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2 (1), Jalgaon

Appeal is partly allowed in above

ITA 238/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta

Section 144Section 69A

could hardly dispute that the same requires afresh factual verification by the Assessing Officer regarding the cost of acquisition vis-à-vis written down value [“WDV”] thereof going by assessee’s depreciation schedule. I thus deem it as a fit case to restore the matter back to the learned Assessing

Primetals Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2017-18

ITA 372/KOL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 May 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 371 & 372/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Primetals Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata 5Th Floor, Tower-C Vs Dlf, It Park-I 08 Majore Arterial Road New Town Kolkata - 700156 [Pan : Aaecv9657M] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajoy Vora, Sr. Advocate & Pooja Saraf, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Orders Framed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C & 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 1(1), Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Ao”) Even Dt. 29/04/2022, Passed In Pursuance Of The Directions Of The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel -2, New Delhi, Dt. 18/02/2022 For Assessment Year 2017-18 & Dt. 04/03/2022 For Assessment Year 2018-19, Passed U/S 144C(5) Of The Act. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18:- “Ground 1:

For Appellant: Shri Ajoy Vora, Sr. Advocate and Pooja Saraf, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 156Section 32(1)Section 92C

authorities below erred in not considering the various submissions made by the appellant with respect to its claim of depreciation on the opening written down value (WDV) of goodwill, in spite of the request made by the appellant in this regard. Ground 4(d): That the authorities below failed ... authorities below erred in not considering the various submissions made by the appellant with respect to its claim of depreciation on the opening written down value (WDV) of goodwill, in spite of the request made by the appellant in this regard. Ground 4(d): That the authorities below failed

Primetals Technologies India Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2017-18

ITA 371/KOL/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 May 2024AY 2017-2018

For Appellant: Shri Ajoy Vora, Sr. Advocate and Pooja Saraf, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 156Section 32(1)Section 92C