← 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

Procter & Gamble Hygiene & Health Care Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Cir 8(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3518/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.3518 & 2277/Mum/2012 Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Additional Cit Circle 8(2) & Healthcare Limited Mumbai -400020 P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Yogesh Thar, Ms. SukanyaFor Respondent: Tushar Mohite
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

year of purchase that asset will be included in the respective block of asset. Depreciation for that year will be calculated on written down value in accordance with section 43(6) of the Act by the increase opening WDV by the actual cost of any asset falling within that block ... relevant previous year, continue to be part of block of asset. Therefore, the Assessee would be entitled to claim depreciation on the written down value of the block of asset in view of the above decision of the Tribunal. Accordingly, we delete the disallowance of depreciation

Procter & Gamble Hygiene & Health Care Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl.C.I.T. Cir. 8(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2277/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.3518 & 2277/Mum/2012 Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Additional Cit Circle 8(2) & Healthcare Limited Mumbai -400020 P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Yogesh Thar, Ms. SukanyaFor Respondent: Tushar Mohite
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

year of purchase that asset will be included in the respective block of asset. Depreciation for that year will be calculated on written down value in accordance with section 43(6) of the Act by the increase opening WDV by the actual cost of any asset falling within that block ... relevant previous year, continue to be part of block of asset. Therefore, the Assessee would be entitled to claim depreciation on the written down value of the block of asset in view of the above decision of the Tribunal. Accordingly, we delete the disallowance of depreciation

Addl CIT RG 8(2), Mumbai vs. Proctor & Gamble Hygiene & Health Care Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2167/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.3518 & 2277/Mum/2012 Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Additional Cit Circle 8(2) & Healthcare Limited Mumbai -400020 P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Yogesh Thar, Ms. SukanyaFor Respondent: Tushar Mohite
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

year of purchase that asset will be included in the respective block of asset. Depreciation for that year will be calculated on written down value in accordance with section 43(6) of the Act by the increase opening WDV by the actual cost of any asset falling within that block ... relevant previous year, continue to be part of block of asset. Therefore, the Assessee would be entitled to claim depreciation on the written down value of the block of asset in view of the above decision of the Tribunal. Accordingly, we delete the disallowance of depreciation

Tech Mahindra Limited (Earlier Known As Mahindra Engineering Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Range 1(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2463/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Tech Mahindra Limited Dy. Cit, Range 2(2) (Earlier Known As Mahindra Mumbai Engineering Services Limited) Vs. Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacm 3484 F (Assessee) (Revenue) : & Asst. Cit-2(3)(1) Tech Mahindra Ltd. Mumbai (Earlier Known As Mahindra Engineering Services Ltd.) Vs. Mahindra Tower, 1St Floor, B Wing, Dr. G M Bhosale Marg, P K Kurne Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Pan/Gir No. Aaacm 3484 F (Revenue) : (Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri Viral ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 10(35)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

during amalgamation which had unabsorbed depreciation as on the date of the amalgamation. The assessee had claimed depreciation on the higher written down value on the assets taken over during amalgamation. The lower authorities have denied the claim of set off unabsorbed depreciation for the reason that the assessee ... satisfied the condition specified u/s. 72A read with Rule 9(c) of the Rules. 22. The ld. AR contended that the written down value of the assets at the hands of the amalgamated company will be the written down value of the amalgamated company for the immediate preceding previous year

DCIT 2(2), Mumbai vs. Mahindra Engineering Services Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2282/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Tech Mahindra Limited Dy. Cit, Range 2(2) (Earlier Known As Mahindra Mumbai Engineering Services Limited) Vs. Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacm 3484 F (Assessee) (Revenue) : & Asst. Cit-2(3)(1) Tech Mahindra Ltd. Mumbai (Earlier Known As Mahindra Engineering Services Ltd.) Vs. Mahindra Tower, 1St Floor, B Wing, Dr. G M Bhosale Marg, P K Kurne Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Pan/Gir No. Aaacm 3484 F (Revenue) : (Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri Viral ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 10(35)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

during amalgamation which had unabsorbed depreciation as on the date of the amalgamation. The assessee had claimed depreciation on the higher written down value on the assets taken over during amalgamation. The lower authorities have denied the claim of set off unabsorbed depreciation for the reason that the assessee ... satisfied the condition specified u/s. 72A read with Rule 9(c) of the Rules. 22. The ld. AR contended that the written down value of the assets at the hands of the amalgamated company will be the written down value of the amalgamated company for the immediate preceding previous year

ACIT-2(2)(1), Mmumbai vs. M/S. Jics Logistic Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

ITA 1781/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

For Appellant: Mr. Satyaprakash Singh

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA

ACIT-2(2)(1), Mmumbai vs. M/S. Jics Logistic Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

ITA 1780/MUM/2023[2016-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2016-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

For Appellant: Mr. Satyaprakash Singh

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA

ACIT-2(2)(1), Mmumbai vs. M/S. Jics Logistic Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

ITA 1779/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

For Appellant: Mr. Satyaprakash Singh

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA

ACIT-2(2)(1), Mmumbai vs. M/S. Jics Logistic Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

ITA 1764/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

For Appellant: Mr. Satyaprakash Singh

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA

ACIT-2(2)(1), Mmumbai vs. M/S. Jics Logistic Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

ITA 1763/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

For Appellant: Mr. Satyaprakash Singh

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA

ACIT-2(2)(1), Mmumbai vs. M/S. Jics Logistic Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

ITA 1762/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

For Appellant: Mr. Satyaprakash Singh

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA

ACIT-2(2)(1), Mmumbai vs. M/S. Jics Logistic Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

ITA 1761/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

For Appellant: Mr. Satyaprakash Singh

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA

ACIT-2(2)(1), Mmumbai vs. M/S. Jics Logistic Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

ITA 1760/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

For Appellant: Mr. Satyaprakash Singh

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA

Denso Haryana Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 10(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 3811/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 Denso Haryana Pvt. Ltd., Versus Dcit, Circle 10(1), B-1/D-4, Ground Floor, Mohan New Delhi. Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, Badarpur, New Delhi. Pan:Aaacd6817F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Himanshu S. Sinha, Adv. Sh. Bhuwan Dhoopar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.11.2023

For Appellant: Sh. Himanshu S. Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 92B

before learned first 29 appellate authority, he granted partial relief to the assessee by allowing a mark-up of 2% on the written down value on account of expenses. 22. Before us, learned counsel appearing for the assessee has submitted as under : 7.1 “The Appellant purchased certain small value capital ... benchmarked the transaction under any one of the available methods. Whereas, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed 2% mark-up on the written down value of the expenses. Thus, as could be seen, the approach adopted both by TPO and learned Commissioner (Appeals) is purely adhoc and not in accordance with

ACIT, Circle- 15(1), New Delhi vs. Leon Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 6155/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Delhi10 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), and the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 07/07/2017 partly allowed the appeal filed by the Assessee by deleting the addition of Rs.2,67,51,318/-.

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 24Section 24(1)(vi)

have been paid, were attributable for acquisition of property. From the perusal of the balance sheet as on 31.03.2012 in addition to the written down value of the impugned property after claim of depreciation, the appellant has included the work in progress of Rs. 14.89 crores. In the value

DCIT RG 8(1), Mumbai vs. Afcons Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1357/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2023AY 2009-10
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

earlier year. Therefore, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 23. In so far as disallowance of depreciation of Rs.25,000/- and written down value of speed boat, it has been submitted that the issue is in favour of the assessee by ITAT in assessee’s own case

Afcons Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1135/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2023AY 2009-10
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

earlier year. Therefore, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 23. In so far as disallowance of depreciation of Rs.25,000/- and written down value of speed boat, it has been submitted that the issue is in favour of the assessee by ITAT in assessee’s own case

Gunita Pradeep Kapur, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-19(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1989/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalgunita Pradeep Kapur 4Th Floor, Mitra Kunj, 16 Peddar Road, Grant Road, Mumbai-400 026 Pan: Aivpk6313M ...... Appellant Vs. Ito Ward 19(1)(3) Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400007 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal & Om Kandalkar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar Meena, Ld. DR
Section 250Section 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 of an eligible business shall be deemed to have been calculated as if the eligible assessee had claimed and had been actually allowed

Orient Craft Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Gurgaon

ITA 1097/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

case of assessee was selected under CASS for the following reasons ; “i. Large deduction under chapter VI-A from total income. ii. 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

Premier Plasmotech Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad vs. DCIT, Circle- 2, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1426/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Uspremier Plasmotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit House No.835, Sector-15, Circle -2 Faridabad, Haryana Faridabad Pan No. Aafcp 7590 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ashok Jain, C.A. Revenue By Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 03.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2023

Section 32

appellant is liable for depreciation on Rs.66,06,212/- in subsequent assessment years while disallowing the said amount which automatically increases the closing Written Down Value of the plant which is contrary to provisions of law and against the principles of natural justice. As such, the amount of Rs.66 ... should be treated as part of closing written down value of plant and depreciation on same should be allowed in subsequent years to the appellant. Premier Plasmotech Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT 3 7. That appellant craves right to amend, add, delete or withdraw any of the ground of appeal either