← 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

Maxxis Rubber India Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1129/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 32(1)

PCIT Asst.Year –2018-19 depreciation allowable for impugned year the assessee had applied the applicable rate of depreciation, i.e 15% to the opening written down value (WDV) of the assets. As per the Ld. PCIT, however, the opening written down value of such assets ought to have been reduced ... carry forward of additional depreciation to the impugned year to the extent of 50% which was not set off from its opening written down value of assets Maxxis Rubber India Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT Asst.Year –2018-19 for the purpose of calculating depreciation for the impugned year. Ld. Counsel

Apraava Renewable Energy Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Pr.CIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 694/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT. DR
Section 263Section 43B

Straight Line Method (‘SLM’) rate of depreciation, which was applied on the original cost of asset purchased and not on the written down value of the asset done by the Ld. PCIT. This fact stands recorded at para 4 of the order of the Ld. PCIT

Apraava Renewable Energy Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Pr.CIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 693/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT. DR
Section 263Section 43B

Straight Line Method (‘SLM’) rate of depreciation, which was applied on the original cost of asset purchased and not on the written down value of the asset done by the Ld. PCIT. This fact stands recorded at para 4 of the order of the Ld. PCIT

Ebix Travels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle 2(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 47/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararjan K

Section 143Section 144BSection 144CSection 234ASection 234BSection 32Section 92CSection 92D

supports the value of intangible assets opening WDV for any of the years, nor the assessee has produced any of the initial opening written down value for the year in which the block came into existence, the value is not substantiated as an allowable deduction/business expenses under section ... xiii. He submits that there could not have been more documents than these documents for the claim of the depreciation on the opening written down value in the block of the assets. xiv. For this purpose, he submitted a chart showing that there is no addition during the year

The Acti, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Nirma Limited, Ahmedabad

ITA 1437/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.1412 & 1413/Ahd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: (2015-2016 & 2016-17) Nirma Limited, Nirma House, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. (Gujarat) बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad. स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacn5350K आयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.1436-1437/Ahd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : (2015-16 & 2016-17) The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad. Nirma Limited, बनाम / V/S. Nirma House, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. (Gujarat) स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacn5350K & C.O Nos.11-12/Ahd/2020 In आयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.1436-1437/Ahd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : (2015-16 & 2016-17) Nirma Limited, Nirma House, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. (Gujarat) The Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम/ V/S. Income Tax/The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad. स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacn5350K अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी / (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, withFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

liability to tax by claiming extra depreciation. On these facts, the CIT(A) held that the assessee was entitled to depreciation on the written down value of intangible assets taking Rs.500 crores as the base cost and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowances of Rs.4 ... pursuant to a scheme sanctioned by the BIFR. In A.Y. 2015–16, the assessee claimed depreciation of Rs.9,71,72,064/- on the written down value of goodwill of Rs.38,86,88,257/- as on 31.03.2015, while in A.Y. 2016–17 depreciation of Rs. 7,28,79,048/- was claimed

The Acti, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Nirma Limited, Ahmedabad

ITA 1436/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.1412 & 1413/Ahd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: (2015-2016 & 2016-17) Nirma Limited, Nirma House, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. (Gujarat) बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad. स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacn5350K आयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.1436-1437/Ahd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : (2015-16 & 2016-17) The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad. Nirma Limited, बनाम / V/S. Nirma House, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. (Gujarat) स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacn5350K & C.O Nos.11-12/Ahd/2020 In आयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.1436-1437/Ahd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : (2015-16 & 2016-17) Nirma Limited, Nirma House, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. (Gujarat) The Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम/ V/S. Income Tax/The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad. स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacn5350K अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी / (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, withFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

liability to tax by claiming extra depreciation. On these facts, the CIT(A) held that the assessee was entitled to depreciation on the written down value of intangible assets taking Rs.500 crores as the base cost and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowances of Rs.4 ... pursuant to a scheme sanctioned by the BIFR. In A.Y. 2015–16, the assessee claimed depreciation of Rs.9,71,72,064/- on the written down value of goodwill of Rs.38,86,88,257/- as on 31.03.2015, while in A.Y. 2016–17 depreciation of Rs. 7,28,79,048/- was claimed

Nirma Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dcti, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 1413/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.1412 & 1413/Ahd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: (2015-2016 & 2016-17) Nirma Limited, Nirma House, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. (Gujarat) बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad. स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacn5350K आयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.1436-1437/Ahd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : (2015-16 & 2016-17) The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad. Nirma Limited, बनाम / V/S. Nirma House, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. (Gujarat) स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacn5350K & C.O Nos.11-12/Ahd/2020 In आयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.1436-1437/Ahd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : (2015-16 & 2016-17) Nirma Limited, Nirma House, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. (Gujarat) The Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम/ V/S. Income Tax/The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad. स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacn5350K अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी / (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, withFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

liability to tax by claiming extra depreciation. On these facts, the CIT(A) held that the assessee was entitled to depreciation on the written down value of intangible assets taking Rs.500 crores as the base cost and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowances of Rs.4 ... pursuant to a scheme sanctioned by the BIFR. In A.Y. 2015–16, the assessee claimed depreciation of Rs.9,71,72,064/- on the written down value of goodwill of Rs.38,86,88,257/- as on 31.03.2015, while in A.Y. 2016–17 depreciation of Rs. 7,28,79,048/- was claimed

Nirma Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dcti, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 1412/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.1412 & 1413/Ahd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: (2015-2016 & 2016-17) Nirma Limited, Nirma House, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. (Gujarat) The Deputy Commissioner बनाम / Of Income Tax, V/S. Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad. स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacn5350K आयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.1436-1437/Ahd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : (2015-16 & 2016-17) The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad. Nirma Limited, बनाम / Nirma House, V/S. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. (Gujarat) स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacn5350K & C.O Nos.11-12/Ahd/2020 In आयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.1436-1437/Ahd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : (2015-16 & 2016-17) Nirma Limited, Nirma House, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. (Gujarat) The Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम/ V/S. Income Tax/The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad. स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacn5350K अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी / (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, withFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

liability to tax by claiming extra depreciation. On these facts, the CIT(A) held that the assessee was entitled to depreciation on the written down value of intangible assets taking Rs.500 crores as the base cost and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowances of Rs.4 ... pursuant to a scheme sanctioned by the BIFR. In A.Y. 2015–16, the assessee claimed depreciation of Rs.9,71,72,064/- on the written down value of goodwill of Rs.38,86,88,257/- as on 31.03.2015, while in A.Y. 2016–17 depreciation of Rs. 7,28,79,048/- was claimed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1)(1) Vadodara, Vadodara vs. M/S. Inox Wind Energy Limited, Vadodara

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

ITA 654/AHD/2025[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Aug 2025

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.654/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner M/S. Inox Wind Energy Of Income Tax, बनाम/ Limited, V/S. Circle-1(1)(1), Abs Tower S. No.1837 & Vadodara. 1834, Op Road, Vadodara-390007. (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aafc14628K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/08/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: ] ] This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Cit(A)”] Dated 27.01.2025, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], On 18.12.2017 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. Dcit Vs. Inox Wind Energy Limited Assessment Year 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

evident that the net worth of the wind energy undertaking transferred by Gujarat Fluorochemicals Ltd. to the assessee was duly certified. The written down value of the depreciable assets transferred by way of slump sale, determined in accordance with section 43 of the Act on block- of-asset basis ... assets transferred under slump sale at Rs. 20,07,15,780, and provides a consistent and verifiable basis for depreciation. In fact, the written down value adopted by the assessee is less than the one certified as per form 3CEA. The allocation to individual assets has been made with reference

Novateur Electrical and Digital Systems Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 944/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Tiwari and Shri Lekh Mehta, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 92CSection 92C(2)

made its claim of depreciation on good will in the year under consideration, i.e., Assessment Year 2012-13 by working out the opening written down value (WDV) for the year. The working of Navateur Electricals and Digital systems Pvt. Ltd. AY 2012-13 depreciation so claimed by the assessee

Dy CIT 10(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Novateur Electricals and Digital Systems Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1189/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Tiwari and Shri Lekh Mehta, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 92CSection 92C(2)

made its claim of depreciation on good will in the year under consideration, i.e., Assessment Year 2012-13 by working out the opening written down value (WDV) for the year. The working of Navateur Electricals and Digital systems Pvt. Ltd. AY 2012-13 depreciation so claimed by the assessee

Harmel Singh, Parwanoo vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Parwanoo, Parwanoo

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 70/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.70/Chd/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 बनाम Harmel Singh, The Ito, Mella Property Near Kasauli Ward Chouwk, Sector 2, Shimla Parwanoo. National Highway, Himachal Pradesh. Parwanoo. "थायीलेखासं./Pan No. Abnpd1482P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) िनधा""रतीकीओरसे/Assessee By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A. & Ms. Shruti Khandewal, Advocate राज कीओरसे/ Revenue By :Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit (Sr. Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28-05-2025 उदघोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21-08-2025 आदेश/Order The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07-11-2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi[Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Is Aggrieved Of The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A. &For Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT (Sr. DR)
Section 51

been forfeited, the said amount of earnest money shall be deducted from the cost for which the asset was acquired or the Written Down Value or fair Market Value, as the case may be, in computing the cost of acquisition at the time of computing the capital gains on sale

Thermo Fisher Scientific India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as per our aforesaid

ITA 2847/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2847/Mum/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2020-21 Thermo Fisher Scientific India Private Limited 403-404, Delphil B Wing, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai Iit, Mumbai-400 076 Pan : Aabct3207A ........अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-15(3)(1), Mumbai ......प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vipul Soni Revenue By : Shri Himanshu Joshi, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing :14.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 20.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri Vipul SoniFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 32(1)Section 80G

Rs.56,64,861/- on contracts acquired from Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited (GSK) 1. erred in not granting depreciation of Rs.56,64,861/- on the written down value of the manufacturing and supply contracts under Section 32(1) of the Act. 2. erred in disregarding the fact that such manufacturing and supply ... contracts acquired from Chemito Technologies Private Limited (CTPL) 5. erred in riot granting depreciation of Rs 16,-11 .10.'/ on the written down value of the contracts under Section 32(1) of the Act. 6. erred in disregarding the fact that such contracts are self generated by CTPL and have

Brahmos Realty Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 9(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4119/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.4119/Mum/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2024-25 Brahmos Realty Private Limited A-10002, Aristo Sappyhire, 2Nd Floor, Hasnabad Lane, Santakruz (W), Mumbai-400 054 (M.H) Pan: Aadcr5685C ...........अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(2)(1),Mumbai (M.H.) .......प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By Revenue By : Shri B.N Rao : Shri Aditya Rai, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing :13.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2025 2 Brahmos Realty Private Limited Vs. Ito, Ward-9(2)(1)

For Respondent: Shri B.N Rao
Section 115BSection 115JSection 143(1)Section 250

full effect to prior to the assessment year beginning on the 1st day of April, 2020, corresponding adjustment shall be made to the written down value of such block of assets as on the 1st day of April, 2019 in the prescribed manner of the option under sub-section

Mahajan Conveyer Industries, Kangra vs. ITO-Ward, Palampur

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1056/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1053/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1054/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1055/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1056/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1052/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Mahajan Conveyer Industries Acit Circle-1 बनाम/ Plot No 32 To 35, Industrial Area, Palampur Bai Attarian Tehsil Indora Vs. Kangra (Hp) 176202 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aanfm-3447-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri J.S.Bhasin (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Priyanka Dhar (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06-08-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025

For Appellant: Shri J.S.Bhasin (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 43(1)Section 80Section 801C

pending for adjudication before Ld. CIT(A). The assessee’s first appeal for AY 2012-13 would have direct bearing on computation of Written Down Value (WDV) of fixed asset for this year and consequential claim of depreciation in all the impugned years. It could also be seen that

Mahajan Conveyer Industries, Kangra vs. ITO-Ward, Palampur

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1055/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1053/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1054/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1055/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1056/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1052/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Mahajan Conveyer Industries Acit Circle-1 बनाम/ Plot No 32 To 35, Industrial Area, Palampur Bai Attarian Tehsil Indora Vs. Kangra (Hp) 176202 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aanfm-3447-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri J.S.Bhasin (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Priyanka Dhar (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06-08-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025

For Appellant: Shri J.S.Bhasin (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 43(1)Section 80Section 801C

pending for adjudication before Ld. CIT(A). The assessee’s first appeal for AY 2012-13 would have direct bearing on computation of Written Down Value (WDV) of fixed asset for this year and consequential claim of depreciation in all the impugned years. It could also be seen that

Mahajan Conveyer Industries, Kangra vs. ITO-Ward, Palampur

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1054/CHANDI/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1053/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1054/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1055/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1056/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1052/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Mahajan Conveyer Industries Acit Circle-1 बनाम/ Plot No 32 To 35, Industrial Area, Palampur Bai Attarian Tehsil Indora Vs. Kangra (Hp) 176202 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aanfm-3447-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri J.S.Bhasin (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Priyanka Dhar (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06-08-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025

For Appellant: Shri J.S.Bhasin (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 43(1)Section 80Section 801C

pending for adjudication before Ld. CIT(A). The assessee’s first appeal for AY 2012-13 would have direct bearing on computation of Written Down Value (WDV) of fixed asset for this year and consequential claim of depreciation in all the impugned years. It could also be seen that

Mahajan Conveyer Industries, Kangra vs. ITO-Ward, Palampur

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1053/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1053/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1054/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1055/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1056/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1052/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Mahajan Conveyer Industries Acit Circle-1 बनाम/ Plot No 32 To 35, Industrial Area, Palampur Bai Attarian Tehsil Indora Vs. Kangra (Hp) 176202 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aanfm-3447-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri J.S.Bhasin (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Priyanka Dhar (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06-08-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025

For Appellant: Shri J.S.Bhasin (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 43(1)Section 80Section 801C

pending for adjudication before Ld. CIT(A). The assessee’s first appeal for AY 2012-13 would have direct bearing on computation of Written Down Value (WDV) of fixed asset for this year and consequential claim of depreciation in all the impugned years. It could also be seen that

Mahajan Conveyer Industries, Kangra vs. ITO-Ward, Palampur

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1052/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1053/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1054/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1055/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1056/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1052/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Mahajan Conveyer Industries Acit Circle-1 बनाम/ Plot No 32 To 35, Industrial Area, Palampur Bai Attarian Tehsil Indora Vs. Kangra (Hp) 176202 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aanfm-3447-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri J.S.Bhasin (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Priyanka Dhar (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06-08-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025

For Appellant: Shri J.S.Bhasin (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 43(1)Section 80Section 801C

pending for adjudication before Ld. CIT(A). The assessee’s first appeal for AY 2012-13 would have direct bearing on computation of Written Down Value (WDV) of fixed asset for this year and consequential claim of depreciation in all the impugned years. It could also be seen that

DCIT-Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai vs. Navkar Corporation Limited, Navi Mumbai

In the result, we affirm the order of the Ld

ITA 1846/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 32Section 80Section 801ASection 801A(4)(i)Section 801A(5)Section 801A(8)Section 80I

erred in allowing the claim of loss on sale of 3 Navkar Corporation Limited fixed assets without verifying the depreciation details and Written Down Value (WDV) of assets as computed by the AO?" 8. "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CITTA) erred