← All Phrases

“WDV method”

DepreciationSection 43(6)Section 43(6)13 judgments

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. SIYARAM SILK MILLS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands allowed

ITA 2941/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Girish Agrawalassistant Commissioner Of Vs. Siyaram Silk Mills Income Tax Limited Room No. 506, 5Th Floor, B5, Trade World, Aaykar Bhavan, M K Road, Kamala City, Senapati Churchgate, Bapat Margf, Lower Mumbai- 400020 Parel West, Mumbai- 400013 Pan/Gir No. Aaacs6995D (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 250Section 32Section 32(1)

Order on amalgamation (AS 14). Thesaid goodwill has to be amortized in the books over the period of 5 years and at 25% under WDV method in the Income Tax. Being the first year of amalgamation, the assessee claimed

SABEENA SILK MILLS ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 31(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 1508/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narndra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjeesabeena Silk Mills Vs Income-Tax Officer 31(1)(1), Apurva Industrial Estate, Mumbai, Majwana Road, Marol Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra, Mumbai-400 059 Mumbai-400 051 Pan: Aabfs3210R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri H.N. MotiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui (SR.DR.)
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 50

generation and distribution of power who claim depreciation on straight line method (SLM). In assessee's case where the depreciation is claimed on WDV method where assets are grouped as "block of assets" there is no question of applicability of section 41(2) of the Act and consequential consideration

EVEREST KANTO CYLINDER LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC BENGALURU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 782/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss Padmavathy S.Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income- 204, Raheja Centre, Free Press Tax,Circle 3(4), Mumbai Journal Marg, Nariman Point World Trade Centre 1, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 005 Pan : Aaace30836F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Shekhar GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 41(2)Section 50

power who claim depreciation on straight line method (SLM). In assessee's case where 11 Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd the depreciation is claimed on WDV method where assets are grouped as "block of assets" there is no question of applicability of section 41(2) of the Act and consequential consideration

THE TATA POWER CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 753/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Ms. Padmavathy.Sआअसं.753/मुं/2013 (िन.व. 2008-09) The Tata Power Co. Ltd. Corporate Center, Block ‘B’, 5Th Floor, 34, Sant Thukaram Road, Carnak Bunder, Mumbai 400 009. Pan: Aaact-0054-A ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range 2(3), Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ....."ितवादी/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi with Shri Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar&
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

order dated 20/03/2012 directed the Assessing Officer to verify if, the assessee had exercised the option of claiming depreciation as per Written Down Value (WDV) method or on Straight Line Method (SLM) basis and in case the depreciation is claimed on WDV method, 15 to allow additional depreciation in terms

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

Thus, it was submitted that the assessing officer erred in denying depreciation under sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Rules as per WDV method. 96. The aforesaid issue otherwise, is now covered in favor of the assessee by the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal

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

Thus, it was submitted that the assessing officer erred in denying depreciation under sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Rules as per WDV method. 96. The aforesaid issue otherwise, is now covered in favor of the assessee by the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal

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

Thus, it was submitted that the assessing officer erred in denying depreciation under sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Rules as per WDV method. 96. The aforesaid issue otherwise, is now covered in favor of the assessee by the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal

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

Thus, it was submitted that the assessing officer erred in denying depreciation under sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Rules as per WDV method. 96. The aforesaid issue otherwise, is now covered in favor of the assessee by the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal

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

Thus, it was submitted that the assessing officer erred in denying depreciation under sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Rules as per WDV method. 96. The aforesaid issue otherwise, is now covered in favor of the assessee by the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal

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

Thus, it was submitted that the assessing officer erred in denying depreciation under sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Rules as per WDV method. 96. The aforesaid issue otherwise, is now covered in favor of the assessee by the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal

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

Thus, it was submitted that the assessing officer erred in denying depreciation under sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Rules as per WDV method. 96. The aforesaid issue otherwise, is now covered in favor of the assessee by the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal

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

Thus, it was submitted that the assessing officer erred in denying depreciation under sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Rules as per WDV method. 96. The aforesaid issue otherwise, is now covered in favor of the assessee by the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. NALWA SONS INVESTMENTS LTD

ITA - 1420 / 2009HC Delhi26 Aug 2010
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 271Section 80Section 80H

Therefore, AO could not have tampered with the figure of depreciation as claimed by the assessee as per the Companies Act, may be WDV method or straight line method or any other method. 20. We have considered the rival submissions. Judgment of the Supreme Court in Gold Coin’s (supra