← 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

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Haryana

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

ITA 4185/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 80H

specified in Appendix 1 read with Rule 5(1) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (`the Rules’). The depreciation was claimed on the written down value of the assets. The assessing officer, however, allowed the depreciation of Straight Lime Method (SLM). Details are as under: (figure in Rs.) Depreciation ... Transmission lines 63 ITA. No. 167/Del/2009 & 7 ors. The depreciation was claimed on the written down value of the assets in view of the position in law, which is stated as under. 89. In terms of clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 32 of the Act, an undertaking

DCIT, Hisar vs. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Hisar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

ITA 4067/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 80H

specified in Appendix 1 read with Rule 5(1) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (`the Rules’). The depreciation was claimed on the written down value of the assets. The assessing officer, however, allowed the depreciation of Straight Lime Method (SLM). Details are as under: (figure in Rs.) Depreciation ... Transmission lines 63 ITA. No. 167/Del/2009 & 7 ors. The depreciation was claimed on the written down value of the assets in view of the position in law, which is stated as under. 89. In terms of clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 32 of the Act, an undertaking

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Hisar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

ITA 2280/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 80H

specified in Appendix 1 read with Rule 5(1) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (`the Rules’). The depreciation was claimed on the written down value of the assets. The assessing officer, however, allowed the depreciation of Straight Lime Method (SLM). Details are as under: (figure in Rs.) Depreciation ... Transmission lines 63 ITA. No. 167/Del/2009 & 7 ors. The depreciation was claimed on the written down value of the assets in view of the position in law, which is stated as under. 89. In terms of clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 32 of the Act, an undertaking

ACIT, Hisar vs. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Hisar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

ITA 2230/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 80H

specified in Appendix 1 read with Rule 5(1) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (`the Rules’). The depreciation was claimed on the written down value of the assets. The assessing officer, however, allowed the depreciation of Straight Lime Method (SLM). Details are as under: (figure in Rs.) Depreciation ... Transmission lines 63 ITA. No. 167/Del/2009 & 7 ors. The depreciation was claimed on the written down value of the assets in view of the position in law, which is stated as under. 89. In terms of clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 32 of the Act, an undertaking

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Haryana vs. DCIT, Hisar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

ITA 413/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 80H

specified in Appendix 1 read with Rule 5(1) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (`the Rules’). The depreciation was claimed on the written down value of the assets. The assessing officer, however, allowed the depreciation of Straight Lime Method (SLM). Details are as under: (figure in Rs.) Depreciation ... Transmission lines 63 ITA. No. 167/Del/2009 & 7 ors. The depreciation was claimed on the written down value of the assets in view of the position in law, which is stated as under. 89. In terms of clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 32 of the Act, an undertaking

DCIT, Hisar vs. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Hisar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

ITA 341/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 80H

specified in Appendix 1 read with Rule 5(1) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (`the Rules’). The depreciation was claimed on the written down value of the assets. The assessing officer, however, allowed the depreciation of Straight Lime Method (SLM). Details are as under: (figure in Rs.) Depreciation ... Transmission lines 63 ITA. No. 167/Del/2009 & 7 ors. The depreciation was claimed on the written down value of the assets in view of the position in law, which is stated as under. 89. In terms of clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 32 of the Act, an undertaking

ACIT, Hisar vs. M/S Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Hisar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

ITA 220/DEL/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 80H

specified in Appendix 1 read with Rule 5(1) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (`the Rules’). The depreciation was claimed on the written down value of the assets. The assessing officer, however, allowed the depreciation of Straight Lime Method (SLM). Details are as under: (figure in Rs.) Depreciation ... Transmission lines 63 ITA. No. 167/Del/2009 & 7 ors. The depreciation was claimed on the written down value of the assets in view of the position in law, which is stated as under. 89. In terms of clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 32 of the Act, an undertaking

Jindal Steel & Power Limited vs. Addl. CIT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

ITA 167/DEL/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 80H

specified in Appendix 1 read with Rule 5(1) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (`the Rules’). The depreciation was claimed on the written down value of the assets. The assessing officer, however, allowed the depreciation of Straight Lime Method (SLM). Details are as under: (figure in Rs.) Depreciation ... Transmission lines 63 ITA. No. 167/Del/2009 & 7 ors. The depreciation was claimed on the written down value of the assets in view of the position in law, which is stated as under. 89. In terms of clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 32 of the Act, an undertaking

Hero Moto Corp Ltd., New Delhi vs. Neac, Delhi

ITA 706/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Pal
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 145Section 1lSection 80ISection 92C

machinery and plant under clause (5) of Appendix I to the Rules and is eligible for depreciation at the rate, of 60% of written down value as specified therein. 19.3 That the assessing officer erred in holding that only software which was purchased as an integral part of the computer

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Sir Shadi Lal Enterprises Ltd, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2333/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Nov 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

Section 158A(1)Section 32Section 43B

report submitted by a registered valuer and furniture and fixture as well as other office items were valued at their respective written down value. Since, the valuation of lease hold land as per market value prescribed by the UP Government was substantially lower than the value assigned by stamp authorities ... were valued as per report submitted by registered-valuer. The furniture & fixture as well as other office item were valued at their respective written down value. But from the records, it can be seen that the leasehold land valued as per market value prescribed by UP Government was substantially lower

M/S. Sir Shadilal Enterprises Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1538/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Nov 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

Section 158A(1)Section 32Section 43B

report submitted by a registered valuer and furniture and fixture as well as other office items were valued at their respective written down value. Since, the valuation of lease hold land as per market value prescribed by the UP Government was substantially lower than the value assigned by stamp authorities ... were valued as per report submitted by registered-valuer. The furniture & fixture as well as other office item were valued at their respective written down value. But from the records, it can be seen that the leasehold land valued as per market value prescribed by UP Government was substantially lower

Shree Bankey Bihari Educational Society(Regd), Ghaziabad vs. JCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4968/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[A.Y 2010-11]

For Appellant: ShriAkilesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar Meel, CIT- DR
Section 11(4)(a)Section 12ASection 80G

rate of depreciation for a block and any sale of asset within the block, would result in a loss only when the entire Written Down Value of the block falls short of sale consideration. 26. In concept of block of assets, loss on sale of individual assets forming part

Amrik Singh, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 19(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 3230/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2013-14 Amrik Singh, Vs Dcit, M/S Sbg & Co., Cas, Circle-19(1), 9 Atta-Ur-Rehman Lane, New Delhi. Civil Lines, New Delhi. Pan : Aaxps2407C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.B. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.10.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20Th February, 2018 Of The Cit(A)-7, New Delhi, Relating To The Assessment Year 2013- 14. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 30Th September, 2013 Declaring The Total Income Of Rs.1,16,90,726/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & Statutory Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued On The Assessee Calling For Various Details/Information. However, Despite A Number Of Opportunities Granted By The Ao, There Was No Appearance From The Side Of The Assessee. Therefore, The Ao Proceeded To Complete The Assessment On The Basis Of Material Available On Record. He Noted That The Assessee Has Shown Gross Receipt Of Rs.5,28,74,884/- & Net Profit Was Shown At Rs.1,18,40,726/-. Since The Assessee Did Not File The Requisite Details, The Ao Made Addition Of Rs.1,32,62,315/- Appearing In The Balance Sheet As Unsecured Loan. Similarly, In Absence Of Details Filed For Substantiating The Various Expenses Claimed In The Profit & Loss Account, The Ao Disallowed An Amount Of Rs.11,89,992/- Being 50% Of The Interest Paid For Unsecured Loan Of Rs.23,79,844/-. Similarly, He Also Disallowed 50% Of Expenses On Account Of Other Expenses (Rs.10,71,926/-), Tour & Travel Expenses (Rs.7,70,165/-) & Depreciation (Rs.9,61,370/-) All Totaling To Rs.39,93,453/-. Thus, The Ao Determined The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.2,89,46,500/-.

For Appellant: Shri S.B. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 37(1)Section 68

assessee amounting to Rs. 961,370 (50% of Rs. 19,22,740), which included depreciation of Rs. 18,78,490 claimed on opening written down value of assets, resulting into addition of 50% of such depreciation also amounting ... modify, or alter any ground at the time of hearing of appeal.” 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that depreciation on written down value of the assets cannot be disallowed even though the assessee has not filed any details. So far as the other expenses are concerned

Nokia India Sales P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-6, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7244/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 7244/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Nokia India Sales Pvt. Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 807, New Delhi House, Special Range-6, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccn9141L Assessee By : Sh. Nageshwar Rao, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Surenderpal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Surenderpal, CIT DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 194JSection 40Section 9(1)(vii)

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in not granting deduction of roll-over depreciation on the written down value of the FOC phones treated as capital assets in the case of NEPL in earlier AYs, where in the impugned assessment order

Paramount Communication Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 19(2), New Delhi

Accordingly, ground no.3 raised by the assessee is allowed and additional ground being infructuous is dismissed

ITA 6141/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri A.T. Panda, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gandhi, Senior DR
Section 143Section 37Section 43A

fixed assets stating that addition to the fixed assets include loss of foreign exchange rates at the year-end which is written down value of block of assets. Accordingly, we direct the AO to allow the depreciation on enhanced liability on exchange rate fluctuation by deleting the addition amounting

Pramod Goyal, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 35(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1525/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Pramod Goyal, Acit, M–217, Shastri Nagar, Vs. Circle : 35 (1) Gali No. 13, Delhi – 110 052. New Delhi. Pan: Aaopg1186D

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 37Section 68

assessee to show what is the cost of land included in the block of factory building and then allow depreciation only on the written down value of the factory building at prescribed percentage. It is clear that no depreciation on land is allowable under the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, ground

Exlservices.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Ltu, Circle- 1, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7392/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kul Bharat(Through Video Conferencing) Exlservices.Com (India) Vs. Acit Pvt. Ltd., Large Taxpayer Unit, 414, 4Th Floor, Plot No.10 Circle – 1, Nbcc Plaza & 11, Dlp Jasola Tower-B, Pushp Vihar, Dda District Centre, Saket, New Delhi New Delhi - 110025 Pan No. Aaace 5174 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. Shri Saksham Singhal, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 31.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.09.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.08.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under :

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 155JSection 271(1)(c)

assessment year 2010-11 and depreciation on the same was allowed in that year, thus it was not permissible to alter the written down value of the block of asset of goodwill, so as to disallow depreciation during the subject year. 2.3 That on the facts and circumstances

DCIT Circle-2, Gurgaon vs. Lalit Wadhwa, Gurgaon

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

ITA 4755/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Amarjeet Singh[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 10BSection 143(3)

shown by the appellant. In response, the appellant submitted that the AO over-looked the fact that the aforesaid amount represents only the written down value and not the value of computer hardware in terms of the actual cost of the asset. Elaborating further, the appellant submitted that

M/S. Paramount Communications Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5395/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

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

Section 2(24)Section 36(1)(v)

taken consistent stand In all assessment years in case of exchange rate fluctuation loss or 2 gain. In case of exchange gain written down value of indigenous assets was reduced and in case of exchange loss written down value was increased. 1.2 That on the facts and circumstances

M/S. Premier Book Co., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5149/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Madhumita Roy[A.Y 2010-11]

For Appellant: Shri B.K. Anand, CAFor Respondent: Shri Bharat B. Garg, Sr. DR
Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

carefully considered the orders of the authorities below. At the very outset, we have to state that depreciation has been claimed on the written down value as on 01.04.2009 which means that depreciation was claimed in earlier years also. We find that this is not the initial year of claim