← All Phrases

“opening WDV”

DepreciationSection 43(6)Section 43(6)263 judgments

The decision most relied on for opening WDV is ACIT v. Progressive Constructions Ltd. (92 Taxmann.com 104), cited in 63 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on opening WDV

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.

CIT v. Artex Manufacturing Co.
227 ITR 260 · 1997 · Supreme Court
36
citing judgments

In a slump sale, the slump purchase price cannot be apportioned among individual assets for claiming depreciation, as there is no indication of the price attributable to specific assets out of the total sale consideration.

DCIT v. Toyo Engineering India ltd.
33 Taxmann.com 560 · 2013 · Reported
22
citing judgments

Depreciation is not allowed on goodwill if it arises from book entries and has no identifiable cost of acquisition. This applies even when goodwill is acquired as part of a scheme of arrangement or amalgamation.

Bodal Chemicals Ltd. v. ACIT, Ahmedabad
112 Taxmann.com 217 · 2019 · ITAT
16
citing judgments

Once depreciation on an asset is allowed in the first year, the revenue is debarred from denying depreciation on the written-down value carried forward in subsequent years, absent a change in facts or law.

PCIT v. GVK Jaipur Expressway
100 Taxmann.com 96 · 2018 · Supreme Court
13
citing judgments

The Supreme Court has affirmed that developers of roadways, operating on a Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) basis, are eligible to claim depreciation on the roads constructed. This decision supports the assessee's claim against the Revenue's challenge.

Judgments citing opening WDV

Alta Leasing & Finance Ltd, Mumbai vs. Jt CIT Spl RG 17, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 3633/MUM/2002[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: H.P. MahajaniFor Respondent: Samruddhi Hande

circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of depreciation of Rs 2,71,77,981/-on opening WDV of the assets without appreciating the fact that these transactions are held as mere finance transactions and the assessee is not entitled ... therefore, this ground of appeal of the revenue stand dismissed. Ground No. 13: Disallowance of depreciation of Rs.2,71, 77,981/- on opening WDV of the assets: 6 Appeals 25 Alta Leasing & Finance Limited Vs. DCIT, Circle-6(1) 26. During the course of assessment the A.O had disallowed

M/S Infineon Technologies India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 3355/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 3355/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Infineon Technologies India Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of 9Th Floor, Prestige Income Tax, Thirulakshmi, Circle – 3(1)(1), No. 11, Mg Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcs6967N Appellant Respondent : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Assessment Order Dated 26/10/2018 By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “A. Transfer Pricing The Grounds Mentioned Hereinafter Are Without Prejudice To One Another. 1. The Learned Assessing Officer ('Learned Ao'), Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ('Learned Tpo') & The Honourable Dispute Resolution Panel ('Hon'Ble Drp') Grossly Erred In Adjusting The Transfer Price By Inr 9,56,93,721/- With Respect To The International

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Vasudevan
Section 92C

that the same cannot be classified as a license. v. The Learned AO and the Hon'ble DRP have failed to consider a higher opening WDV as computed by the Learned AO on account of disallowance of excess depreciation on software expense in AY 2013-14, for the computation

;Marie Gold Realtors P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-CC-8(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 825/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth KotariFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Kabra
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

Officer observed that during the year under consideration assessee has made an addition of ₹.1,17,35,000/- to tenancy rights which had an opening WDV at ₹.32,72,60,093/- and accordingly, claimed depreciation on tenancy rights as stated above i.e. 8,47,48,773/-. Accordingly, assessee was asked ... acquired additional tenancy M/s. Marie Gold Realtors Pvt. Ltd., rights of ₹.1,17,35,000/- and claimed depreciation on both current as well as opening WDV. We observe that this is not the first year assessee is claiming such depreciation. Even in the previous assessment years assessee has claimed

Marie Gold Realtors P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-CC-8(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 824/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth KotariFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Kabra
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

Officer observed that during the year under consideration assessee has made an addition of ₹.1,17,35,000/- to tenancy rights which had an opening WDV at ₹.32,72,60,093/- and accordingly, claimed depreciation on tenancy rights as stated above i.e. 8,47,48,773/-. Accordingly, assessee was asked ... acquired additional tenancy M/s. Marie Gold Realtors Pvt. Ltd., rights of ₹.1,17,35,000/- and claimed depreciation on both current as well as opening WDV. We observe that this is not the first year assessee is claiming such depreciation. Even in the previous assessment years assessee has claimed

Elim Resort Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3(2)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 238/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year :2016-17 M/S. Elim Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, No.175, Nettigere Village, Ward – 3(2)(2), Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 061. Pan : Aadce 0682 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. B. S. Balachandra, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.02.2020 Of Cit(A)-2, Bengaluru, Relating To Ay 2016-17. 2. The First Issue Raised By The Assessee Is With Regard To Disallowance Of Depreciation On Buildings Of Rs.3,19,208/-. The Opening Wdv As On 01.04.2014 & As On 01.04.2015 As Per The Books Of Accounts Of The Assessee Was As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri. B. S. Balachandra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 32Section 43(1)

first issue raised by the assessee is with regard to disallowance of Depreciation on Buildings of Rs.3,19,208/-. The opening WDV as on 01.04.2014 and as on 01.04.2015 as per the Books of Accounts of the assessee was as follows: WDV AS ON 01.04.2014 3,57,47,371 ADDITION ... building. As per the said valuation report, the land and building were valued at Rs.3,48,00,000/-. According to the AO, the opening WDV as on 01.04.2014 should have been adopted at Rs.3,48,00,000/- and not at Rs.3,57,47,371/- as per books of accounts

India Medtronic Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10 (1)91), Mumbai

In the result, ground No.54 of the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7935/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 7935/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2015-16) India Medtronic Private Limited, 1241, Solitaire Corporate Park, Bldg.No.12, 4Th Floor, Andheri-Ghatkopar Link Road, Andheri(E), Mumbai – 400 093 Pan:Aaaci-4227-Q ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-10(1)(1), Room No.209, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Rajan R. Vora, C.A With Shri Nikhil Tiwari ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Yogesh Kamath, Cit-Dr With S/Shri Satya Pinisetty/R.A.Dhyani सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 22/04/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 17/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Assessment Order Dated 25/10/2019 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’].

For Appellant: Shri Rajan R. Vora, C.A with Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kamath, CIT-DR with S/Shri Satya Pinisetty/R.A.Dhyani
Section 143(3)

additional ground raised by the assessee. Therefore, following the consistent view of the Tribunal, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation on the opening WDV of the non-compete fee. This ground is allowed.” The ground No.53 of the appeal is thus, allowed for parity of reasons

Dy CIT Circle- 12(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Archroma India Pvt Ltd., Thane

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 590/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – Circle – 12(1)(1) V. M/S. Archroma India Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 128C, 1St Floor 9Th Floor, D Building Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mbc Park, Ghodbunder Road Mumbai - 400020 Kasawadavali, Thane Mumbai - 400615 Pan: Aaaca8270F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agrawal Department By : Ms. Shailaja Rai

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Ms. Shailaja Rai
Section 170Section 2(42)Section 2(42)(C)Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 50BSection 5O

nature thereby directing the AO to rework the allowable depreciation by taking the closing WDV for preceding year i.e. AY 2014-15 as the opening WDV for the relevant year without appreciating that the decision for AY 2014-15 has not been accepted by the department and appeal is still

Gea Process Engineering (India) P.Ltd, Gujrat vs. ITO, Mumbai

ITA 4338/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09 Dcit, M/S. Gea Process Circle- 2(2)(1), Engineering (India) Pvt. Room No.545, Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Savli Road, M.K. Road, P.O. Dumad, Mumbai - 400020 Baroda, Gujarat- 391740 Pan: Aaacl0566H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M. Lala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Mishra, D.R
Section 2(24)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

assessee. The AO also disallowed the claim of depreciation of the assessee company to the tune of Rs.5,19,11,719/- on opening WDV of intangible assets of Rs.20,76,46,875/- by following A.Y. 2006- 07. The AO also disallowed an amount of Rs.1,13,20,000/- debited ... company has claimed depreciation of Rs.5,19,11,719/- on certain intangible assets including non computing fee, rights, patents, trademarks etc. @ 25% of the opening WDV of Rs.20.6 crore, which the AO has disallowed on the ground that in the schedule of fixed assets the assessee had shown an aggregate

DCIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Gea Process Engineering ()I) P.Ltd, Gujrat

ITA 4155/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09 Dcit, M/S. Gea Process Circle- 2(2)(1), Engineering (India) Pvt. Room No.545, Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Savli Road, M.K. Road, P.O. Dumad, Mumbai - 400020 Baroda, Gujarat- 391740 Pan: Aaacl0566H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M. Lala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Mishra, D.R
Section 2(24)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

assessee. The AO also disallowed the claim of depreciation of the assessee company to the tune of Rs.5,19,11,719/- on opening WDV of intangible assets of Rs.20,76,46,875/- by following A.Y. 2006- 07. The AO also disallowed an amount of Rs.1,13,20,000/- debited ... company has claimed depreciation of Rs.5,19,11,719/- on certain intangible assets including non computing fee, rights, patents, trademarks etc. @ 25% of the opening WDV of Rs.20.6 crore, which the AO has disallowed on the ground that in the schedule of fixed assets the assessee had shown an aggregate

United Breweries Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 2569/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92B(1)

income has claimed a sum of Rs.2,30,41,441 as depreciation on goodwill @ 25% as per the provisions of the Act on the opening WDV of Rs.14,95,54,349. Before the AO, the assessee has submitted that it has acquired the brewery from Karnataka Breweries & Distilleries Ltd. through

Income Tax Officer 8(3)(3), Mumbai vs. M/S.Vibgyor Texotech Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 1484/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Pavan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR/
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 264ASection 40

assessee has shown net block of asset of Rs. 17.63,26,729/-. However, in the accounts submitted before me the opening WDV of the same was shown at Rs. 15,13,06,969/- Thus there is a difference in the opening balance of fixed assets of Rs.2 ... unaudited balance sheet filed along with ITA No. 1484/M/2018 & ITA No. 487/M/2019 55 M/s Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd. the return of income opening WDV was shown at Rs.15,13,06,969/-. In this regard the appellant has submitted that the amount of Rs.1,46,24,270 represented fictitious unsecured loans

M/S.Vibgyor Texotech Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT-8(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 487/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Pavan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR/
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 264ASection 40

assessee has shown net block of asset of Rs. 17.63,26,729/-. However, in the accounts submitted before me the opening WDV of the same was shown at Rs. 15,13,06,969/- Thus there is a difference in the opening balance of fixed assets of Rs.2 ... unaudited balance sheet filed along with ITA No. 1484/M/2018 & ITA No. 487/M/2019 55 M/s Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd. the return of income opening WDV was shown at Rs.15,13,06,969/-. In this regard the appellant has submitted that the amount of Rs.1,46,24,270 represented fictitious unsecured loans

Asst CIT 10 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Hybrid Financial Services Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 8048/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri K. ChandramouliFor Respondent: Shri P.R. Ghosh

filed detailed submissions in this regard: - 3 ITA.NO. 8048/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2008-09) M/s. Hybrid Financial Services Ltd., “2. Disallowance of Income-tax Depreciation on opening WDV of leased Assets Rs.1,70,77,889/-: Ground No. 3 &4 The appellant submits that the depreciation claimed in the computation of total - income ... allowed the depreciation on leased assets. Revised submissions in respect to ground no.3 regarding disallowance of income tax depreciation of Rs.1,70.77,889/- on opening WDV of leased assets. The appellant vide its letter dt.3/7/2014 has submitted the written submissions in respect to income tax depreciation on opening WDV

Aarti Industrial Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 15(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose and appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3695/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Bledcit – 15(1)(1) V. M/S. Arti Industries Ltd., Room No. 470, 4Th Floor 71, Udyog Kshetra, 2Nd Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mulund-Goregoaon Link Road Mumbai - 400020 Mulund(W), Mumbai -400080 Pan: Aabca2787L Appellant Respondent & C.O. No. 145/Mum/2019 [Arising Out Of Ita.No. 3583/Mum/2018 (A.Y. 2014-15)] M/S. Arti Industries Ltd., V. Dcit – 15(1)(1) 71, Udyog Kshetra, 2Nd Floor Room No. 470, 4Th Floor Mulund-Goregoaon Link Road Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mulund(W), Mumbai -400080 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aabca2787L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue By : Ms. Shailaja Rai & Shri Mehul Jain

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Shailaja Rai &
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 80

allowed in AY 2011-12 as well. Further if once the asset enters the block of asset and forms part of the opening WDV the Assessing Officer is ought to allow the depreciation. If the depreciation is allowed in the earlier year in case of the Appellant itself then

M/S. Corporation Bank, Mangaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1), Mangaluru

ITA 1109/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S & Ita No.1680/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2015-16 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan, C.A &For Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

Tribunal in the case of State Bank of Mysore (ITA No.1063/Bang/2014). Before the CIT(A), the assessee also made an alternate plea that the opening WDV should be reworked and the depreciation should be allowed on the reworked WDV. The CIT(A) did not consider the plea of the 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)

Rs.3,10,16,050/- is upheld and the order of the AO is restored. The addition of depreciation on account of opening wdv being revised owning to findings in AY 2002-02 that purchase of fixed assets to the extent of Rs.96,08,994/- was bogus and therefore the opening ... disallowance of excess claim of depreciation of Rs.13,51,265 /- and disallowance excess claim of depreciation due to adoption of wrong opening WDV are opposed to Law and facts of the case. 3. The CIT(A) has heavily relied upon the written submissions made by the assessee at the time

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)

Rs.3,10,16,050/- is upheld and the order of the AO is restored. The addition of depreciation on account of opening wdv being revised owning to findings in AY 2002-02 that purchase of fixed assets to the extent of Rs.96,08,994/- was bogus and therefore the opening ... disallowance of excess claim of depreciation of Rs.13,51,265 /- and disallowance excess claim of depreciation due to adoption of wrong opening WDV are opposed to Law and facts of the case. 3. The CIT(A) has heavily relied upon the written submissions made by the assessee at the time

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)

Rs.3,10,16,050/- is upheld and the order of the AO is restored. The addition of depreciation on account of opening wdv being revised owning to findings in AY 2002-02 that purchase of fixed assets to the extent of Rs.96,08,994/- was bogus and therefore the opening ... disallowance of excess claim of depreciation of Rs.13,51,265 /- and disallowance excess claim of depreciation due to adoption of wrong opening WDV are opposed to Law and facts of the case. 3. The CIT(A) has heavily relied upon the written submissions made by the assessee at the time

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)

Rs.3,10,16,050/- is upheld and the order of the AO is restored. The addition of depreciation on account of opening wdv being revised owning to findings in AY 2002-02 that purchase of fixed assets to the extent of Rs.96,08,994/- was bogus and therefore the opening ... disallowance of excess claim of depreciation of Rs.13,51,265 /- and disallowance excess claim of depreciation due to adoption of wrong opening WDV are opposed to Law and facts of the case. 3. The CIT(A) has heavily relied upon the written submissions made by the assessee at the time

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)

Rs.3,10,16,050/- is upheld and the order of the AO is restored. The addition of depreciation on account of opening wdv being revised owning to findings in AY 2002-02 that purchase of fixed assets to the extent of Rs.96,08,994/- was bogus and therefore the opening ... disallowance of excess claim of depreciation of Rs.13,51,265 /- and disallowance excess claim of depreciation due to adoption of wrong opening WDV are opposed to Law and facts of the case. 3. The CIT(A) has heavily relied upon the written submissions made by the assessee at the time