“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

Jsw Steel Limited, Mumbai vs. Addlcit, Bangalore

858/M/2011

ITA 858/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Amarjit Singh () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Jsw Steel Limited, The Addl. Cit, Range 11, Jindal Mansion, 5A, Vs. Bangalore. Dr. G. Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dc. Cc.46, M/S Jsw Steel Ltd., R.No. 659, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. Jindal Mansion, 5-A, Dr. G Bhavan, M.K. Road, Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Jsw Steel Ltd., Dcit, Central Circle 46, Jsw Centre, Bandra Kurla Vs. 6Th Flr., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Complex, Road, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Danesh Bafna &For Respondent: Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 37(1)

subsidy received by the assessee as provided to meet cost of asset, and therefore he has reduced the amount of sales tax subsidy written down value of assets, which has resulted into reducing claim of depreciation of the assessee amounting to ₹7,80,30,000/-. While deciding the issue ... dismissed. 26. The ground No. 3 (Three) of the appeal relates to disallowance of consequential depreciation of ₹ 5,79,08,466/- on increased written down value (WDV) of the assets transferred on amalgamation. 27. The brief facts qua the issue in dispute are that in previous year relevant to assessment

Rashmi Subhash Jha, Mumbai vs. ITO-29(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 782/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

Section 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 44ASection 80Section 90Section 90ASection 91

deemed to have been already given full effect to and no further deduction under those sections shall be allowed. 89[***] (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

Reliance Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Mumbai

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 2876/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 28

insertion of Explanation 5 to Section 32(1) of the Act, the assessee had not claimed the depreciation on certain assets. The written down value of these assets thus remained constant till 31stMarch 2002. The Assessing Officer, however, proceeded to recompute the written down value by thrusting depreciation

DCIT (Ltu)-2, Mumbai vs. M/S Reliance Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 2344/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 28

Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Mumbai

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 1645/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 28

Sabmiller India Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 11(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 7157/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

audited financial statements under the head "Trade Marks/ Brands" and claimed depreciation on the Foster's Brand, at the rate of 25% on written down value basis, in accordance with section 32(1) of the Act and the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 6.2. For the year under consideration, the assessee ... claimed depreciation amounting to Rs 9,10,11,094 (being 25% of Rs 36,40,44,375 opening written down value) on Foster's brand in its return of income filed. However, while concluding the assessment, the ld. AO disregarded the submissions and explanations provided by the assessee and disallowed

Dy CIT - 8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Voltas Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 94/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – 8(3)(1) V. M/S. Voltas Limited Room No. 615 Voltas House, A Block Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Rod Mumbai - 400020 Chinchpokli, Mumbai – 400033 Pan: Aaacv2809D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Joshi Department By : Shri Milind Chavan

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan

Section 112Section 2Section 50Section 50C

exceeds the aggregate of the following amounts, namely :— (i) expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer or 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 ... assets in that block are transferred during the previous year, the cost of acquisition of the block of 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 block

M/S. Medi Assist Insurance Tpa Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-12(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1933/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Medi Assist Insurance Tpa Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of Tower ‘D’, 4Th Floor, Ibc Income-Tax, Knowledge Park, 4/1 Bannerghatta Vs. Circle - 4(1)(2), Main Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 029. Pan –Aaccm 8044 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Prabhu, C.A Revenue By : Shri Sumeer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.02.2022 O R D E R Per Beena Pillaithis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- 4, Bangalore Dated 22/3/2018 For The Asst. Year 2011-12 For Computing The Short Term Capital Gain At Rs.7,80,38,353/-. 2. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Before Us “(I) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Dcit & Cit(A) Erred In Computing The Short Term Capital Gain At Rs.7,80,38,353/- By Adding The Negative Net-Worth Instead Of Restricting The Same To Nil As Deeded Cost, Since Cost Cannot Be A Negative Value Page 2 Of 19

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Prabhu, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sumeer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)

Section 142(1)Section 50B

worth had been given in Explanation 1 read with Explanation 2 to section 50B as per which the aggregate value of total asset (written down value in case of depreciable assets and book value in the case of other assets) is reduced by the value of liabilities of such undertaking ... 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

Asstt. CIT, Circle-3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Reliance Corporatio It Park Ltd., Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 1893/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita Nos. 1893 & 1894/Mum/2020 (A.Ys: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Acit, Circle -3(3)(1) Vs. M/S Reliance Room No. 609, 6Th Corporate It Park Ltd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Bldg. No. 45, Ttc Indl. Mk Road, Mumbai – Area, Thane-Belapur 400 020. Road, Rabale, Navi Mumbai – 400701. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcd7169H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mrs.Mamta Bansal. Cit Dr Respondent By : Mr. Nimesh Vora.C A .Ar Date Of Hearing 24.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 17.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Mumbai, Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act.

For Appellant: Mrs.Mamta Bansal. CIT DRFor Respondent: Mr. Nimesh Vora.C A .AR

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92

issue as in the earlier A.Y 2011-12 and 2012-13 at Para 6.3 of the order. Finally the A.O has considered the written down value ITA No. 1893&1894/Mum/2020 Reliance Corporate I T Park Ltd. Mumbai. (WDV) of the plant and machinery as on 01.04.2012 and computed the depreciation

M/S Hassan Co-Operative Milk Producers Societies Union Ltd, Hassan vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Hassan

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

ITA 1509/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, D.R

Section 2Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80HSection 80ISection 80P(2)(e)

actual cost thereof to the assessee as may be prescribed; (ii) in the case of any block of assets, such percentage on the written down value thereof as may be prescribed: "(iia) in the case of any new machinery or plant (other than ships and aircraft), which has been acquired

ACIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Lalitpur Power Generation Company, Mumbai

ITA 3566/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Kirit Kamdar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 57Section 94A

allowed under section 57 in respect of interest expenditure as prayed for in ground no. 1 above, then cost of acquisition of assets/ written down value thereof ought not to be reduced by such amount of interest income.” 2. Briefly stated facts necessary for adjudication for the controversy at hand

Geodis Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4771/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora, Sr. DR

Section 234BSection 234DSection 250(6)Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

opinion that this is not the initial year of claim of depreciation and in this year, the assessee has claimed depreciation on the written down value. We find that in the immediately preceding A.Y i.e. 2010-11, this dispute has been settled by the co-ordinate bench in assessee

DCIT, Gulbarga vs. M/S Jupiterbioscience Ltd., Bidar

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 628/BANG/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Sumeer Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 271(1)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 35(2)

therefore the AO disallowed 25% depreciation resulting in a disallowance of Rs.24,02,248/- as depreciation in AY 2002-03. The opening written down value (wdv) of the assets on which depreciation was claimed by the Assessee in AY 2003-04 on the same item of machinery ... therefore the AO disallowed 25% depreciation resulting in a disallowance of Rs.24,02,248/- as depreciation in AY 2002-03. The opening written down value (wdv) of the assets on which depreciation was claimed by the Assessee in AY 2003-04 on the same item of machinery

DCIT, Gulbarga vs. M/S Jupiter Bioscience Ltd., Bidar

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 951/BANG/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Sumeer Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 271(1)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 35(2)

DCIT, Gulbarga vs. M/S Jupiter Bioscience Ltd., Bidar

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 950/BANG/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Sumeer Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 271(1)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 35(2)

DCIT, Gulbarga vs. M/S Jupiterbioscience Ltd., Bidar

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 627/BANG/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Sumeer Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 271(1)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 35(2)

DCIT, Gulbarga vs. M/S Jupiter Bioscience Ltd., Bidar

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 990/BANG/2008[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Sumeer Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 271(1)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 35(2)

ACIT, Gulbarga vs. M/S. Jupiter Bioscience Ltd., Bidar

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1232/BANG/2005[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Sumeer Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 271(1)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 35(2)

Aricent Technologies (Holdings) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 1, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed in terms of

ITA 601/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 32(1)(i)

depreciation on goodwill amounting toRs. 66,96,48,045/- claimed u/s 32(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. on the Written Down Value (WDV) of goodwill atRs. 2,67,85,92,179/- arising out of the amalgamation of Flextronics Software Limited (Flextronics) and Futures Software Limited (FSL) into ... facts and in law in not allowing depreciation ofRs.66,96,48,045 claimed under section 32(1)(i) of the Act on written down value of Goodwill & S.A. No.167/Del/2021 Aricent Technologies (Holdings) Ltd. vs. ACIT of Rs. 267,85,92,179 arising out of amalgamation of Flextronics Software Limited (Flextronics

Tv Today Network Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 9, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6542/DEL/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiyaa N D Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)

levy of penalty on the issue of depreciation on OB vans whereas Ld Assessing Officer has himself allowed the depreciation only on written down value of OB vans [ i.e. after considering the depreciation in AY 2004-05] in the next assessment years i.e. AY 2005-06 onwards. “ 3. The assessee