← 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

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

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

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax-3(4), Mumbai-400005 vs. M/S. Acc Limited, Mumbai-400020

In the result, appeal filed by department is dismissed

ITA 1171/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Dcit (Ltu) 121, Cement House, M.K. Road 29Th Floor, Center-1 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Mumbai - 400005 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit – 3(4) V. M/S. Acc Limited 29Th Floor, Center-1 Cement House,121, M.K. Road World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400005 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

emphasise that the action of the assessee in not reducing the cost of assets by the amount of subsidy for working out the Written Down Value was indicative of the fact that the impugned receipts were not in the nature of capital receipts. 55. We have heard both the parties ... emphasise that the action of the assessee in not reducing the cost of assets by the amount of subsidy for working out the Written Down Value was indicative of the fact that the impugned receipts were not in the nature of capital receipts. 55. We have heard both the parties

Jsw Steels Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 8(3), Mumbai

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5459/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

circumstances of the case und in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to consider the increased written down value of the assets received from the merged companies thereby allowing additional depreciation even though the conditions of Sec 72A(2) were not satisfied rendering the unabsorbed ... circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to consider the increased written down value of the assets received from the merged companies thereby allowing additional depreciation even though the conditions of Sec 72A(2) were not satisfied rendering the unabsorbed

Jsw Steels Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 8(3), Mumbai

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5458/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

circumstances of the case und in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to consider the increased written down value of the assets received from the merged companies thereby allowing additional depreciation even though the conditions of Sec 72A(2) were not satisfied rendering the unabsorbed ... circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to consider the increased written down value of the assets received from the merged companies thereby allowing additional depreciation even though the conditions of Sec 72A(2) were not satisfied rendering the unabsorbed

Jsw Steels Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 8(3), Mumbai

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5457/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

circumstances of the case und in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to consider the increased written down value of the assets received from the merged companies thereby allowing additional depreciation even though the conditions of Sec 72A(2) were not satisfied rendering the unabsorbed ... circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to consider the increased written down value of the assets received from the merged companies thereby allowing additional depreciation even though the conditions of Sec 72A(2) were not satisfied rendering the unabsorbed

DCIT CC 8(3)(Erstwhile DCIT, CC-46, Mumbai vs. Jsw Steels Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5327/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

circumstances of the case und in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to consider the increased written down value of the assets received from the merged companies thereby allowing additional depreciation even though the conditions of Sec 72A(2) were not satisfied rendering the unabsorbed ... circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to consider the increased written down value of the assets received from the merged companies thereby allowing additional depreciation even though the conditions of Sec 72A(2) were not satisfied rendering the unabsorbed

DCIT CC 8(3)(Erstwhile DCIT, CC-46, Mumbai vs. Jsw Steels Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5326/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

circumstances of the case und in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to consider the increased written down value of the assets received from the merged companies thereby allowing additional depreciation even though the conditions of Sec 72A(2) were not satisfied rendering the unabsorbed ... circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to consider the increased written down value of the assets received from the merged companies thereby allowing additional depreciation even though the conditions of Sec 72A(2) were not satisfied rendering the unabsorbed

DCIT CC 8(3), Mumbai vs. Jsw Steels Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5325/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

circumstances of the case und in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to consider the increased written down value of the assets received from the merged companies thereby allowing additional depreciation even though the conditions of Sec 72A(2) were not satisfied rendering the unabsorbed ... circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to consider the increased written down value of the assets received from the merged companies thereby allowing additional depreciation even though the conditions of Sec 72A(2) were not satisfied rendering the unabsorbed

DCIT CC 8(3), Mumbai vs. Jsw Steels Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4632/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2008-09

circumstances of the case und in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to consider the increased written down value of the assets received from the merged companies thereby allowing additional depreciation even though the conditions of Sec 72A(2) were not satisfied rendering the unabsorbed ... circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to consider the increased written down value of the assets received from the merged companies thereby allowing additional depreciation even though the conditions of Sec 72A(2) were not satisfied rendering the unabsorbed

Jsw Steel Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC-46, Mumbai

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4287/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2008-09

circumstances of the case und in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to consider the increased written down value of the assets received from the merged companies thereby allowing additional depreciation even though the conditions of Sec 72A(2) were not satisfied rendering the unabsorbed ... circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to consider the increased written down value of the assets received from the merged companies thereby allowing additional depreciation even though the conditions of Sec 72A(2) were not satisfied rendering the unabsorbed

Nitrex Chemicals India Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2860/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaacit, Vs. M/S. Nitrex Chemicals India Circle 18(2), Ltd. New Delhi 1213, Ansal Towers, 38-Nehru Place, New Delhi 110019 Pan : Aaacf7820L M/S. Nitrex Chemicals India Vs. Dcit, Ltd. Circle 18(2), 1213, Ansal Towers, New Delhi 38-Nehru Place, New Delhi 110019 Pan : Aaacf7820L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 37(1)

section 32(l)(iii) of the Act, the value of the money payable by the Insurance company is to be reduced from the written down value. Thus, as the assessee had not reduced the written down value of the asset in respect of claim lodged before the insurance company ... accruing as a result of the transfer of such capital asset. Next Section 43(6) (c) of the Act which defines the “written down values” provides : “(c) in the case of any block of assets,- (i) in respect of any previous year relevant to the assessment year commencing

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Nitrex Chemicals India Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2536/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaacit, Vs. M/S. Nitrex Chemicals India Circle 18(2), Ltd. New Delhi 1213, Ansal Towers, 38-Nehru Place, New Delhi 110019 Pan : Aaacf7820L M/S. Nitrex Chemicals India Vs. Dcit, Ltd. Circle 18(2), 1213, Ansal Towers, New Delhi 38-Nehru Place, New Delhi 110019 Pan : Aaacf7820L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 37(1)

section 32(l)(iii) of the Act, the value of the money payable by the Insurance company is to be reduced from the written down value. Thus, as the assessee had not reduced the written down value of the asset in respect of claim lodged before the insurance company ... accruing as a result of the transfer of such capital asset. Next Section 43(6) (c) of the Act which defines the “written down values” provides : “(c) in the case of any block of assets,- (i) in respect of any previous year relevant to the assessment year commencing

Standard Chartered Investments & Loan India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(3), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 848/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv M. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Pitta

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92C

relevant previous year, the Appellant again claimed 25. depreciation of INR 13,89,928/- computed at the rate of 60% on the opening Written Down Value (WDV) as no additions were made to the block of assets during the relevant previous year. However, the Assessing Officer again restricted the claim

M/S. Somaiya Properties and Investments Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As the Godavari Sugar Mills P. Ltd), Mumbai vs. ACIT (OSD)2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5748/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishithe Godavari Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. Assistant Commissioner Of 45-47, Somaiya Bhavan Income Tax - 2(1) Vs. M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai 400001 Room No. 561, Aayakar Bhavan Pan – Aaact5004A M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Vipul Doshi & Dinkle Haria Respondent By: Shri Rm K. Kedia, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.06.2023 O R D E R Per: Prashant Maharishi Am

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Doshi & Dinkle HariaFor Respondent: Shri Rm K. Kedia, Sr. D.R

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)

direction given by the learned CIT – A to the learned assessing officer to recalculate the depreciation as per the law on the revised written down value after giving effect to earlier orders of the CIT – A and allow the depreciation accordingly. However after this directions also the order giving effect ... filed by the assessee and we find that the learned CIT – A has given a direction to the learned assessing officer to recalculate written down value of the asset based on the orders of the learned CIT – A, the learned AO has carried out those directions. And if the assessee

Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Co. Ltd., Raipur vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 24/RPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur15 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.16/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. O/O. Executive Director-Finance Ground Floor, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5772F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.24/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. Ground Floor, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5772F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32

demerged 12 Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. ITA No.24/RPR/2022 company to the resulting company, then, notwithstanding anything contained in clause (1), the written down value of the block of assets in the case of the resulting company shall be the [written down value of the transferred assets

The Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited, Raipur, Raipur (Cg) vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax 1(2), Raipur, Raipur (Cg)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 16/BIL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur15 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.16/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. O/O. Executive Director-Finance Ground Floor, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5772F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.24/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. Ground Floor, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5772F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32

demerged 12 Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. ITA No.24/RPR/2022 company to the resulting company, then, notwithstanding anything contained in clause (1), the written down value of the block of assets in the case of the resulting company shall be the [written down value of the transferred assets

DCIT 7(3), Mumbai vs. Wyeth Ltd ( Formerly Known As Wyeth Lederle Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3508/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blepfizer Limited V. Acit- Special Range 23 (Earlier Known As Wyeth Lederle Limited) [Now The Dcit-Circle 7(3)] The Capital, G-Block Aayakar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai- 400020 Bandra (E), Mumbai -400012 Pan: Aaacp3334M (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit- Ltu V. M/S. Wyeth Limited 28Th Floor, Centre - 1 (Formerly Known As Wyeth Lederle Ltd) Rbc Mahindra Towers World Trade Centre 4Th Floor, A- Wing Cuffe Parade, Mumbai Dr G.M. Bhosale Road Worli, Mumbai- 400055 Pan: Aaacw2641Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vishal Kalra Department Represented By : Smt. Sujatha Iyangar

Section 43(6)Section 80H

computing their total income. 3. The CIT(A) erred in holding that the Addl.CIT was justified in reducing book written down value of assets transferred by them in the scheme of demerger from the opening block of asset for the purposes of computing depreciation allowable to them. Your appellants submit ... should have held that for the purposes of computing depreciation admissible under the Act only the tax written down value is required to be reduced from the opening block of assets. Your appellants pray that the Addl.CIT be directed to compute depreciation accordingly. The CIT(A) erred in holding that

ACIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Mukand Sumi Metal Processing Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 3568/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Acit 3(2)(1) M/S. Mukand Sumi Metal Processing Mumbai Limited 3Rd Floor, Bajaj Bhawan, Vs. Jamanalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 005

For Appellant: Shri Soumen Adak &For Respondent: 09.03.2023

Section 250Section 32

lease rent continues to be charged at the gross value of the plant and machinery but the depreciation is charged at the reducing written down value every year. The ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim of the deprecation made by the assessee. 5. The Revenue is in appeal before ... owned wholly or partly and used for the purpose of business or profession, the assessee can claim depreciation at such percentage on the written down value. The ld. AR further stated that the assessee company falls under the provisions of section 32 as a twin conditions are 4 ACIT

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. the Fertilizer Corporation of India, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for A

ITA 3357/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Sarita Kumari, CIT, DR

Section 143Section 143(3)

amendment of section 32 by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1986. Section 32(1) of the Act allows the depreciation on the written down value of the assets. 26. Section 2(11) of the Act defines the term 'block of assets' as under : "2(11) "Block of assets" means ... depreciation is prescribed;" ITAs No.3725, 5467, 5468/Del/2015 ITAs No.3354, 2719, 2798, 3355, 3356, 3357 & 2884/Del/2016 27. Along with the aforesaid amendment, definition of written down value as contained in section 43(6) has also been amended and the amended provisions read as under : "43(6) "Written down value" means

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. the Fertilizer Corporation of India, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for A

ITA 3356/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Sarita Kumari, CIT, DR

Section 143Section 143(3)

amendment of section 32 by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1986. Section 32(1) of the Act allows the depreciation on the written down value of the assets. 26. Section 2(11) of the Act defines the term 'block of assets' as under : "2(11) "Block of assets" means ... depreciation is prescribed;" ITAs No.3725, 5467, 5468/Del/2015 ITAs No.3354, 2719, 2798, 3355, 3356, 3357 & 2884/Del/2016 27. Along with the aforesaid amendment, definition of written down value as contained in section 43(6) has also been amended and the amended provisions read as under : "43(6) "Written down value" means

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. the Fertilizer Corporation of India, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for A

ITA 3355/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Sarita Kumari, CIT, DR

Section 143Section 143(3)

amendment of section 32 by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1986. Section 32(1) of the Act allows the depreciation on the written down value of the assets. 26. Section 2(11) of the Act defines the term 'block of assets' as under : "2(11) "Block of assets" means ... depreciation is prescribed;" ITAs No.3725, 5467, 5468/Del/2015 ITAs No.3354, 2719, 2798, 3355, 3356, 3357 & 2884/Del/2016 27. Along with the aforesaid amendment, definition of written down value as contained in section 43(6) has also been amended and the amended provisions read as under : "43(6) "Written down value" means