← 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

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 13(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Sodexo Facilities Management Services India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2945/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopaldcit, Sodexo Facilities Circle-13(2)(2), Management Services बनाम/ Mumbai. India Pvt.Ltd., 1St Floor, Vs. Gemstar Commercial Complex, Ramchandra Lane, Extension Kanchpada, Malad West, Mumbai-400064. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aabcs4166M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri A.N.Bhalekar, Sr.Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mrunal Parekh सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 16/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 25/05/2023 आदेश / Order Per Om Prakash Kant- Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.09.2022 Passed By Ld Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“In Short The Ld. Cit(A)”]For Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2012-13, Raised Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri A.N.Bhalekar, Sr.ARFor Respondent: Shri Mrunal Parekh
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 43(6)(c)Section 50B(3)

worked out by the assessee is reproduced as under: - Particulars Amount Net worth of the business being 75,51,873 transferred: Written Down value of Depreciable Assets of the said business determined under section 43(6)(c)(i)(c) Book value of other Assets ... Explanation 2.—For computing the net worth, the aggregate value of total assets shall be,— (a ) in the case of depreciable assets, the written down value of the block of assets determined in accordance with the provisions contained in sub-item (C) of item (i) of sub-clause

Pooja Metal Processors Private Limited, Faridabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 1301/DEL/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2018-19 Pooja Metal Processors Pvt Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.89, Cpc, Dlf Industrial Estate Phase I, Bangalore. Anangpur, Faridabad – 121 003. Pan: Aaacp9084G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K. Mishra, Ca Revenue By : Ms Princy Singhla, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.05.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: This Appeal In Ita No.1301/Del/2021 For Ay 2018-19 Arises Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit(A)’, In Short] In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021-22/1034567083(1) Dated 02.08.2021 Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 17.05.2019 By The Ld. Assessing Officer, Cpc (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’). 2. The First Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Was Justified In Confirming The Disallowance Made On Account Of Employee’S Contribution To Provident Fund/Employees’ State Insurance Scheme (Pf/Esi) Which Was Not Deposited Till The Due Date Prescribed Under The Respective Acts, But, Were Duly Remitted To The Account Of The Government On Or Before The Due Date Of Filing The Return Of Income U/S 139 (1) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Mishra, CAFor Respondent: Ms Princy Singhla, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 32Section 43

dispute that during the year under consideration, the assessee disposed of its part of plant & machinery for Rs.21,88,000/- which had a written down value of Rs.18,00,849/- as per the Companies Act. Accordingly, there was a gain of Rs.3,87,151/- (Rs.21,88,000/- (-) Rs.18 ... accounts of the assessee company only. That has absolutely nothing to do with the provisions of the Income-tax Act. Moreover, the written down value of the plant & machinery as per the Companies Act and written down value of plant & machinery as per the Income-tax Act would obviously