← 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

Tushar Enterprises, Goregaon East, Mumbai vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra East Mumbai

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

ITA 2542/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailtushar Enterprises, 2-A/401-402 Dheeraj Valley, Mohan Gokhale Road, Saibaba Complex, Goregaon East, Mumbai ............... Appellant Maharahstra - 400063 Pan : Aaaft1242R V/S Income Tax Officer, ……………… Respondent Ward – 41(4)(4), Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051 Assessee By : Shri Sanjay Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Asif Karmali, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 50C

sale of property. Appellant submits that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law. the written down value (WDV) on date of sale ought to be allowed as cost of Acquisition to for the purpose of computing Income from Capital Gain. Appellant submits

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 10(1), Delhi, Cr Building vs. Indus Towers Limited, Gurgram

ITA 2805/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142Section 143(3)

erred in alleging that PIA's were not received as "gift" by the TowerCos from Opcos and consequently, benefit of written down value (WDV) in the hands of the Opcos cannot be adopted. 1.4 That the CIT(A)/ AO erred on facts and in law in disregarding two separate ... treating the scheme as one of the “demerger” u/s 2(19AA) of the Act thereby restricting the claim of depreciation only on written down value of assets being transferred from PSCL to Ponni Sugars (Erode) Ltd. Hon'ble High Court held that the order sanctioning scheme of arrangement

Indus Towers Ltd., Gurugram, Haryana vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 12(1), New Delhi

ITA 2607/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142Section 143(3)

erred in alleging that PIA's were not received as "gift" by the TowerCos from Opcos and consequently, benefit of written down value (WDV) in the hands of the Opcos cannot be adopted. 1.4 That the CIT(A)/ AO erred on facts and in law in disregarding two separate ... treating the scheme as one of the “demerger” u/s 2(19AA) of the Act thereby restricting the claim of depreciation only on written down value of assets being transferred from PSCL to Ponni Sugars (Erode) Ltd. Hon'ble High Court held that the order sanctioning scheme of arrangement

Sagarlaxmi Agriseeds Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1918/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year : 2017-18 Sagarlaxmi Agriseeds Pvt Ltd Acit, Cir.4(1)(1) 206, Ashwamegh Avenue Vs Ahmedabad. Opp: Mithakhali Garden Navrangpura Ahmedabad. Pan : Aawcs 7561 F (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee By : Shri Deepak R. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Dharnidas V.S., Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/08/2025 आदेश/O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Deepak R. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dharnidas V.S., Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32

referred to the to the explanation 7 to s. 43(1) defining “actual cost” and explanation 2 to s. 43(6)(c) defining “written down value” and held that the combined reading of said provisions would reveal that in a scheme of amalgamation, if any capital asset is transferred ... asset for the purpose of its own business. He further observed Sagarlaxmi Agriseeds Pvt.Ltd. vs. ACIT Asst.Year: 2017-18 8 that the WDV (Written Down Value) of the assets acquired in the scheme of takeover in the hands of the assessee company would continue to be the same

Hira Power & Steels Limited, Raipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Raipur

In the result ground no 6 of the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 233/RPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.233/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Hira Power & Steels Limited 557, Urla Industrial Area, Urla Industrial Complex, Raipur (C.G.)-493 221 Pan: Aabcj0138Q ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 14A

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: Provided that no deduction shall be allowed under this clause in respect of— (a) any motor car manufactured outside ... purposes of business or profession, the deduction in respect of such asset shall be allowed on such percentage on the written down value thereof as may be prescribed. Explanation.—For the purposes of this proviso,— (a) the expression "commercial vehicle" means "heavy goods vehicle", "heavy passenger motor vehicle", "light motor

M/S. Bodal Chemicals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals being IT(SS)A No

ITA 318/AHD/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Nagar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-DR and Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 153A(1)(b)

books of amalgamating company whatever the value thereof. The section pre- supposes and deals already recorded in books of accounts and having a written down value (WDV). The Explanation to the said section deals block of asset already having a written down value in books of account of transferring company ... applicable when an asset is not in the books of account of the transferring company and there is no value of written down value and on which no depreciation is allowed in previous year. In the case of assessee company the bouquet of intangible was not at all recorded

Computer Media Dealers Association, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemptions), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3033/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Computer Media Dealers Cit(Exemption), Association, Room No. 601, Cumballa Hill, Vs. 22-D, Motlibai House, S.A. Brelvi Mtnl Te Building, Peddar Road, Road, Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-400 001. Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaatc 0225 F Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Lalchand Choudhary
Section 263

incurred wholly wholly and and exclusively exclusively in in connection with such transfer or transfers; connection with such transfer or transfers; (ii) the written down value of the block of assets at the the written down value of the block of assets at the beginning of the previous year ... cost of acquisition of the block of the previous year, the cost of acquisition of the block of assets shall be the written down value of the block of assets assets shall be the written down value of the block of assets assets shall be the written down value

Thermo Fisher Scientific India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 15 (3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 7845/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Chandni Shah & Ms. Hinal ShahFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 144C(5)Section 32(1)

learned DCIT and the Hon'ble DRP erred in not granting depreciation of Rs. 2,38,71,679 on the written down value of business or commercial rights being the manufacturing contracts as on 1 April 2014 under section 32(1) r.w.s ... learned DCIT and the Hon'ble DRP erred in not granting depreciation of Rs. 57,58,217 on the written down value of business or commercial rights being the supply contracts as on 1 April 2014 under section 32(1) r.w.s

Fresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-9(3), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 605/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Manish Agarwalfresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd. Income Tax Officer, B-310, Som Dutt Chamber, Ward-9(3), Bhikaji Cama Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110066. Pan-Aabcd7720L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

ground that capital investment subsidy received by the Appellant from the State Government was towards cost of plant and machinery, thereby, reducing the Written Down Value of plant and machinery and consequently, depreciation claimed thereon. 6.1 That the AO erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that subsidy

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai vs. S. Rajendran, Chitharal

ITA 2904/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:2903 & 2904/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2020-21 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -2, Madurai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement S.Rajendran, Vs.13-85/42A, Parthittavillai Veedu, Chitharal Pο, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil – 629 151. [Pan:Afqpr-2835-H] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri. M. Murali, C.I.T. & Shri. Kumar Chandan, J.C.I.T. Shri. T. Vasudevan, Advocate 20.06.2025 30.07.2025 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Years 2015-16 & 2020-21, Vide Order Dated 19.09.2024 Respectively. Since Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, Appeals Filed By The Revenue Were Heard & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

Section 68

depreciation, it was submitted that it related to the assets purchased in the earlier years and the depreciation was claimed on the opening written down value and the same cannot be disallowed in this year. However, the AO disallowed the depreciation despite the fact that the required particulars were filed ... depreciation, it was submitted that it related to the assets purchased in earlier years and the depreciation was claimed on the opening written down value and the same cannot be disallowed in this year. However, the AO disallowed the depreciation despite the fact that the required particulars were filed

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai vs. S.Rajendran, Chitharal Po

ITA 2903/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:2903 & 2904/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2020-21 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -2, Madurai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : : S.Rajendran, Vs.13-85/42A, Parthittavillai Veedu, Chitharal Pο, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil – 629 151. [Pan:Afqpr-2835-H] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri. M. Murali, C.I.T. & Shri. Kumar Chandan, J.C.I.T. Shri. T. Vasudevan, Advocate 20.06.2025 30.07.2025 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Years 2015-16 & 2020-21, Vide Order Dated 19.09.2024 Respectively. Since Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, Appeals Filed By The Revenue Were Heard & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. :-2-:

Section 68

depreciation, it was submitted that it related to the assets purchased in the earlier years and the depreciation was claimed on the opening written down value and the same cannot be disallowed in this year. However, the AO disallowed the depreciation despite the fact that the required particulars were filed ... depreciation, it was submitted that it related to the assets purchased in earlier years and the depreciation was claimed on the opening written down value and the same cannot be disallowed in this year. However, the AO disallowed the depreciation despite the fact that the required particulars were filed

Equipment Fabricators, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Circle-4(2)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 881/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri. B. S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy N, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

Accordingly, for the year ending 31.03.2015, the Appellant had closing balance of building i.e., written down value ("WDV") of Rs.3,93,91,843.59/-. It is submitted that while filing the return of income for the AY 2015-16, the Appellant inadvertently missed to mention / include the addition to asset ... after September 2014. During the course of assessment and in the assessment order, the AO has observed that there was difference in the written down value as of31.03.2015 and 01.04.2015 due to which the AO has come to a conclusion that the Page 4 of 5 Appellant has claimed excess

Promotional Club, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-28(1), Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 748/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.748 /Del./2025, A.Y. 2017-18 Promotional Club Income Tax Officer, D-815, New Friends Colony, Ward-28(1), Civic Centre, New Delhi - 110025 Vs. Minto Road, New Delhi Pan: Aajfp4348R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/07/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am

Section 115BSection 234BSection 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 68

depreciation of Rs.2,37,150/-, being 15 percent of Rs.15,81,000/- on the ground that there was difference in the closing written down value of plant and machinery as per ITR of AY 2016-17 and the opening WDV taken in ITR of AY 2017-18 without appreciating that ... there was no column in the return form to show the above amount but same as duly included in written down value as per statement with accounts and therefore, figure of opening WDV was correctly taken by the appellant and depreciation thereon was duly allowable in this year. vi. That

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada vs. Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited, Vijayawada

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 343/VIZ/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.335, 339, 340, 341, 342 & 343/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23) Dcit – Circle – 1(1) Vs. Transmission Corporation Of Cr Buildings, M.G. Road Andhra Pradesh Limited Vijayawada – 520002 48-12-4/1, Gunadala Andhra Pradesh Vijayawada – 520004 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aabct0088P] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) सी.ओ सं. / C.O. Nos. 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 & 35/Viz/2025 [आयकर अपीलसं.से उत्पन्न/I.T.A.Nos.335, 339, 340, 341, 342 & 343/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23)] Transmission Corporation Of Vs. Dcit – Circle – 1(1) Andhra Pradesh Limited Cr Buildings, M.G. Road 48-12-4/1, Gunadala Vijayawada – 520002 Vijayawada – 520004 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aabct0088P] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri M. Chandramouleswara Rao, Ca करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr)

stock shown in Balance Sheet and P&L a/c of current year as per Return of income. (ii) Large difference in the opening written down value of current year and closing written down value of previous year shown in Schedule – DPM and schedule – DOA as per Return of income

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada vs. Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited, Vijayawada

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 342/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.335, 339, 340, 341, 342 & 343/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23) Dcit – Circle – 1(1) Vs. Transmission Corporation Of Cr Buildings, M.G. Road Andhra Pradesh Limited Vijayawada – 520002 48-12-4/1, Gunadala Andhra Pradesh Vijayawada – 520004 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aabct0088P] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) सी.ओ सं. / C.O. Nos. 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 & 35/Viz/2025 [आयकर अपीलसं.से उत्पन्न/I.T.A.Nos.335, 339, 340, 341, 342 & 343/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23)] Transmission Corporation Of Vs. Dcit – Circle – 1(1) Andhra Pradesh Limited Cr Buildings, M.G. Road 48-12-4/1, Gunadala Vijayawada – 520002 Vijayawada – 520004 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aabct0088P] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri M. Chandramouleswara Rao, Ca करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr)

stock shown in Balance Sheet and P&L a/c of current year as per Return of income. (ii) Large difference in the opening written down value of current year and closing written down value of previous year shown in Schedule – DPM and schedule – DOA as per Return of income

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada vs. Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited, Vijayawada

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 341/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.335, 339, 340, 341, 342 & 343/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23) Dcit – Circle – 1(1) Vs. Transmission Corporation Of Cr Buildings, M.G. Road Andhra Pradesh Limited Vijayawada – 520002 48-12-4/1, Gunadala Andhra Pradesh Vijayawada – 520004 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aabct0088P] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) सी.ओ सं. / C.O. Nos. 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 & 35/Viz/2025 [आयकर अपीलसं.से उत्पन्न/I.T.A.Nos.335, 339, 340, 341, 342 & 343/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23)] Transmission Corporation Of Vs. Dcit – Circle – 1(1) Andhra Pradesh Limited Cr Buildings, M.G. Road 48-12-4/1, Gunadala Vijayawada – 520002 Vijayawada – 520004 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aabct0088P] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri M. Chandramouleswara Rao, Ca करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr)

stock shown in Balance Sheet and P&L a/c of current year as per Return of income. (ii) Large difference in the opening written down value of current year and closing written down value of previous year shown in Schedule – DPM and schedule – DOA as per Return of income

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada vs. Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited, Vijayawada

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 340/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.335, 339, 340, 341, 342 & 343/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23) Dcit – Circle – 1(1) Vs. Transmission Corporation Of Cr Buildings, M.G. Road Andhra Pradesh Limited Vijayawada – 520002 48-12-4/1, Gunadala Andhra Pradesh Vijayawada – 520004 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aabct0088P] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) सी.ओ सं. / C.O. Nos. 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 & 35/Viz/2025 [आयकर अपीलसं.से उत्पन्न/I.T.A.Nos.335, 339, 340, 341, 342 & 343/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23)] Transmission Corporation Of Vs. Dcit – Circle – 1(1) Andhra Pradesh Limited Cr Buildings, M.G. Road 48-12-4/1, Gunadala Vijayawada – 520002 Vijayawada – 520004 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aabct0088P] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri M. Chandramouleswara Rao, Ca करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr)

stock shown in Balance Sheet and P&L a/c of current year as per Return of income. (ii) Large difference in the opening written down value of current year and closing written down value of previous year shown in Schedule – DPM and schedule – DOA as per Return of income

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada vs. Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited, Vijayawada

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 339/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.335, 339, 340, 341, 342 & 343/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23) Dcit – Circle – 1(1) Vs. Transmission Corporation Of Cr Buildings, M.G. Road Andhra Pradesh Limited Vijayawada – 520002 48-12-4/1, Gunadala Andhra Pradesh Vijayawada – 520004 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aabct0088P] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) सी.ओ सं. / C.O. Nos. 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 & 35/Viz/2025 [आयकर अपीलसं.से उत्पन्न/I.T.A.Nos.335, 339, 340, 341, 342 & 343/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23)] Transmission Corporation Of Vs. Dcit – Circle – 1(1) Andhra Pradesh Limited Cr Buildings, M.G. Road 48-12-4/1, Gunadala Vijayawada – 520002 Vijayawada – 520004 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aabct0088P] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri M. Chandramouleswara Rao, Ca करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr)

stock shown in Balance Sheet and P&L a/c of current year as per Return of income. (ii) Large difference in the opening written down value of current year and closing written down value of previous year shown in Schedule – DPM and schedule – DOA as per Return of income

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada vs. Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited, Vijayawada

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 335/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.335, 339, 340, 341, 342 & 343/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23) Dcit – Circle – 1(1) Vs. Transmission Corporation Of Cr Buildings, M.G. Road Andhra Pradesh Limited Vijayawada – 520002 48-12-4/1, Gunadala Andhra Pradesh Vijayawada – 520004 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aabct0088P] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) सी.ओ सं. / C.O. Nos. 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 & 35/Viz/2025 [आयकर अपीलसं.से उत्पन्न/I.T.A.Nos.335, 339, 340, 341, 342 & 343/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23)] Transmission Corporation Of Vs. Dcit – Circle – 1(1) Andhra Pradesh Limited Cr Buildings, M.G. Road 48-12-4/1, Gunadala Vijayawada – 520002 Vijayawada – 520004 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aabct0088P] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri M. Chandramouleswara Rao, Ca करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr)

stock shown in Balance Sheet and P&L a/c of current year as per Return of income. (ii) Large difference in the opening written down value of current year and closing written down value of previous year shown in Schedule – DPM and schedule – DOA as per Return of income

Steelfab Building Systems, Mumbai vs. DCIT. Central Circle 1 (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3196/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Steelfab Building Systems Deputy Commissioner Of Income Embassy Centre, 604, Tax, Central Circle – 1(2), 6Th Floor, Jamnalal Bajaj Mumbai Vs. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 (Pan : Aaxfs5995B) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Fenil Bhatt, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 32

premises. According to the ld. Assessing Officer, assessee had claimed depreciation amounting to Rs.2,83,04,104/-. Assessee had shown opening balance of written down value (WDV) of the office premises at Rs.7,75,76,657/-. The same amount was show as opening balance of WDV for Assessment Year ... which is in his favor but the A.Y 2014-15 and 2015-16 though he has worked out the depreciation and written down value but not rectified as per his own stand because if he allowed then there will be substantial refund worked out in favor of your appellant that