“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

Mangal Credit and Fincorp Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2756/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 56(2)(ix)

retained by the assessee in respect of such negotiations shall be deducted from the cost for which the asset was acquired or the written down value or the fair market value, as the case may be, in computing the cost of acquisition. Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014 has inserted ... section (2) of section 56, then, such sum shall not be deducted from the cost for which the asset was acquired or the written down value or the fair market value, as the case may be, in computing the cost of acquisition. This amendment aims to avoid double taxation

Kings Infra Ventures Ltd, Thevara vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1 (2), Kochi

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 25/COCH/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Apr 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Sandeep Gosainkings Infra Ventures Ltd. Asstt. Commissioner Of A-1, 1St Floor, Atria Apartment Income Tax, Opp. Gurudwara Temple Vs. Circle - 1(2) Perumanur Road Kochi Thevara, Kochi [Pan:Aaccv3411D] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By: Shri Joseph Markose, Sr. Advocate Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)

during the year, or kept in a state of readiness for the same, would imply a claim on the basis of the obtaining written down value of the relevant assets, i.e., actual cost less the depreciation actually allowed. Further still, while, it is true that the assessee is not impacted

Vidya Devi, Karnal vs. ITO Ward - 4, Karnal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the AO is directed to delete the addition

ITA 7529/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C. M. Gargvidya Devi, Vs. Ito, Vill. Kailash, Po Tikri, Ward-4, Karnal, Haryana Karnal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Fcbpd4813A Assessee By : Shri Satyam Aneja, Adv Revenue By: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17/04/2023

For Appellant: Shri Satyam Aneja, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 12Section 147Section 2Section 2(47)Section 45Section 47Section 51Section 56(2)(ix)

retained by the assessee in respect of such cancellation of transaction shall be deducted from the cost of acquisition of asset or the written down value or fair market value as the case may be and this fact would be considered by the AO in a case where such property

Shri Devkripa Textile Mills (P) Ltd., Bhilwara vs. ACIT, Bhilwara Circle, Bhilwara

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

ITA 467/JODH/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur05 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

given thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. In our considered opinion, depreciation has been claimed by the assessee on the written down value of the asset which means that in earlier years, the asset was used for the purposes of business. Nowhere the Assessing Officer has brought

George Kochuparambil, Prop. United Granites & Metals, Thodupuzha vs. Central Circle, Kochi

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

ITA 190/COCH/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Juduicial Member & Ms. Padmavathy Sshri George Kochuparambil Kochuparambil House Dcit/Acit, Central Vazhithala P.O. Vs. Circle Thodupuzha Kochi Idukki 685583 Pan – Afjpk9650E Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Mathew Joseph, Ca Respondent By: Shri M. Jarasekhar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.03.2023

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri M. Jarasekhar, CIT-DR

Section 135Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

large cash deposits during the demonetisation period; (ii) Mismatch in expenditure of personal nature reported in the audit report; (iii) Opening written down value of fixed assets as per ITR of the current year is greater than the closing written down value of fixed assets

M/S.Kannan Devan Hills Plantations Company P. Ltd, Idukki vs. The ACIT, Cochin

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 27/COCH/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: SMT. BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member), MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Rohini Thampy, CA

Section 10Section 10(30)Section 30Section 801ASection 80I

plant and machinery thus acquired included the electric power distribution network— the transmission lines. 34. The assessee produced an audited certificate that the written down value of the plant and machinery as on 01/04/2004 was Rs. 88,39,340/-. It has claimed that it spent for the assessment year

V Guard Industries Limited, Vennala vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 63/COCH/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Mar 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Sandeep Gosainv-Guard Industries Ltd. Principal Cit-1, 42/962, Vennala High School C R Building, I S Press Road, Vs. Road, Vennala, Kochi 682018 Ernakulam 682028 [Pan: Aaacv5492Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Anil D. Nair, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Prashant V.K., Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.03.2023 O R D E R Per: Bench This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Challenging The Revision Of It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) Dated 28/12/2018 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17 By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Kochi (‘Pr. Cit’ For Short) Vide Order U/S. 263 Dated 22/03/2021. 2. The Appeal, Filed On 08/03/2022, Though Delayed By 256 Days, Was Admitted In View Of The Blanket Condonation By The Apex Court In Suo Motu Wp(C) No.3/2020, Dated 10/01/2022, Excluding The Period From 15/3/2020 To 28/02/2022 In Reckoning The Delay In Computing Limitation Under Law & The Hearing Accordingly Proceeded With. The Assessee Is A Company Manufacturing Electrical Cables, Pumps, Solar Water Heaters, Etc. & Trading In Electrical & Electronic Goods. Revision Of It’S Impugned Assessment Is On Several Issues On Which The Revisionary Authority Found An Absence Or Lack Of Enquiry By The Assessing Officer

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prashant V.K., CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

extent unabsorbed entitled to be carry-forward for this year, forming part of the current year’s depreciation, reducing the open written down value (WDV) thereby. No issue therefore, in our view, arises for being considered by the AO. The Revenue has no case, with the ld. Pr. CIT having

Virender Yadav, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward- 4(4), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1787/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra[Assessment Year: 2013-14]

Section 131

retained by the assessee in respect of such negotiations shall be deducted from the cost for which the asset was acquired or the written down value or the fair market value, as the case may be, in computing the cost of acquisition.” Later on w.e.f. 1.4.2015 proviso was added which ... section (2) of section 56. then. such sum shall not be deducted from the cost for which the asset was acquired or the written down value or the fair market value. As the case may be. in computing the cost of acquisition.” 8.1 Clause ix of sub section

S P Associates Management Consultants Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT(OSD) Ward-22(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1807/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Pavan Tamrakar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeetandra Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 271(1)(c)

same method of depreciation, by mistake, was adopted for calculation of depreciation on fixed assets for income tax purposes instead of written down value method at the rate prescribed under the Income Tax Act. It was submitted that having realized the mistake, the original and revised depreciation calculation sheet

ACIT, Circle-1, Noida vs. Jaiprakash Associates Limited, Noida

In the result, appeals of the Revenue

ITA 947/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar GargFor Respondent: Smt Abha Rani Singh

Section 143(3)

depreciation of Rs. 2,72,49,734/- on the golf course. 67. AO noted that assessee has claimed depreciation at 15% on the written down value of the Gold Course at Greater Noida by treating it as Plant & Machinery and thereby claimed deprecation

ACIT, Circle-1, Noida vs. Jaiprakash Associates Limited, Noida

In the result, appeals of the Revenue

ITA 946/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar GargFor Respondent: Smt Abha Rani Singh

Section 143(3)

ACIT, Circle-1, Noida vs. Jaiprakash Associates Limted, Noida

In the result, appeals of the Revenue

ITA 945/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar GargFor Respondent: Smt Abha Rani Singh

Section 143(3)

M/S. Applied Materials India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 2582/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri T. Suryanarayana

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

D.C.I.T., CC - 4(4), Kolkata vs. Electrosteel Casting Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 485/KOL/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Dec 2022AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Years: 2016-17 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Electrosteel Casting Ltd. Income-Tax, Central G.K. Tower Vs. Circle-4(4), Kolkata. 19, Camac Street Kolkata -700017 (Pan: Aaace4975B) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 43(1)

this appeal 2 AY: 2016-17 Electrosteel Casting Ltd. relates to subsidy received by the assessee which has not been deducted from the written down value (WDV) of block of assets vide ground no.1. Issue relating to disallowance made u/s. 14A read with Rule

Mylan Laboratoreis Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1897/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri P.V.S.S. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 32

under sixth proviso to section 32 (1) of the Act to the successor/amalgamated company in the year of amalgamation would be on the written down value of the assessee in the books of the amalgamating company and not on the cost as recorded in the books of amalgamated company

M/S. Croda India Company Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Pr. Comm of Income Tax, Mumbai-6

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1439/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 32Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35Section 43(6)

interests of the revenue on the ground that the ld. AO had granted excess depreciation on Goodwill by computing the opening written down value of asset wrongly. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. The show cause notice issued by the ld. PCIT dated 17/02/2022 is reproduced hereunder ... provides that in respect of block of assets, the depreciation shall be allowed at such percentage on the written down value (WDV) thereof, as 6 M/s. Croda India Company Pvt. Ltd. may be prescribed. The assessee also placed reliance on the provisions of section 43(6) of the Act which

ACIT Company Circle II(3), Chennai vs. Indian Bank Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in all assessment years

ITA 885/CHNY/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Mr. Sanjeev Aditiya, FCAFor Respondent: Mr.R.Mohan Reddy, CIT

Section 43(1)

cease to exist. Therefore, as per the provisions of Explanation-7 to Sec.43(1) of the Act, the assessee can claim depreciation on written down value of assets taken over from the amalgamating bank. Therefore, appeals may be decided in accordance with law. 4. The Ld.DR, on the other hand ... been determined by the Government of India. The AO has allowed depreciation on assets taken over from the Bank of Thanjavur Ltd., on written down value of assets taken over from said Bank in light of provisions of Explanation-7 to Sec.43(1) of the Act. The matter reached