← 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

Olympic Decor LLP, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr.CIT, Ahmedabad-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 423/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Olympic Décor Llp Pr.Commissioner Of 6, Patel Avenue, Nr.Gurudwara Vs Income Tax-3 Sg Highway, Bodakdev Ambawadi Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan : Adafs 2113 H (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate & Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ars : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 28Section 32(1)(ii)Section 32(2)Section 68Section 80I

depreciation on goodwill was allowed in earlier years and has attained finality by way of a binding decision of the Co-ordinate Bench, the opening WDV in the subsequent year has to be accepted, and depreciation thereon has to 6 be mandatorily allowed as per settled law. Consequently, the order

Aksh Optifibre Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle - 2, Alwar

In the result, all the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 170/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Akul Agarwal, C.A. (thr. V.C.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 234ASection 250

acquired on November 2009 and put to use for less than 180 days. On the other hand, the appellant reported the assets purchased as opening WDV on 01.04.2009 and claimed full depreciation at Rs.7.25,02,593/against the depreciation allowed by AO at Rs.3,62,51,297/ 8.1 During the course

ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad vs. Eenadu Television Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 648/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri V. Siva Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

result, the value of asset of appellant company as on 01.04.2010 was at Rs.212,33,75,625/-. For the assessment year 2017-2018, the opening WDV is worked out at Rs.37,79,15,242/- and on which the appellant company has claimed depreciation @ 25% applicable to an “Intangible Asset

Eenadu Television Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

ITA 563/HYD/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 May 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri V. Siva Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

result, the value of asset of appellant company as on 01.04.2010 was at Rs.212,33,75,625/-. For the assessment year 2017-2018, the opening WDV is worked out at Rs.37,79,15,242/- and on which the appellant company has claimed depreciation @ 25% applicable to an “Intangible Asset

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad vs. Eenadu Television Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 665/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri V. Siva Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

result, the value of asset of appellant company as on 01.04.2010 was at Rs.212,33,75,625/-. For the assessment year 2017-2018, the opening WDV is worked out at Rs.37,79,15,242/- and on which the appellant company has claimed depreciation @ 25% applicable to an “Intangible Asset

ACIT, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad vs. Eenadu Television Private Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 654/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri V. Siva Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

result, the value of asset of appellant company as on 01.04.2010 was at Rs.212,33,75,625/-. For the assessment year 2017-2018, the opening WDV is worked out at Rs.37,79,15,242/- and on which the appellant company has claimed depreciation @ 25% applicable to an "Intangible Asset

Hotel Surya Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. ITO Ward 11(1), Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 396/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari - CIT
Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(2)

property in ITR in compared to rental receipts stated in 26AS, (iii) Higher turnover reported in service tax return as compared to ITR, (iv) opening WDV of the fixed assets as per ITR of current year is greater than closing WDV of fixed assets as per ITR of preceding years

Hotel Surya Private Limited, Pune vs. ITO, Wad-11(1), Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 395/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari - CIT
Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(2)

property in ITR in compared to rental receipts stated in 26AS, (iii) Higher turnover reported in service tax return as compared to ITR, (iv) opening WDV of the fixed assets as per ITR of current year is greater than closing WDV of fixed assets as per ITR of preceding years

Rajesswaran Sam, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-8(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2489/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri K. Srinandan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

passing an order u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 10.12.2019. Further, the AO has observed that there is a substantial difference between opening WDV of fixed assets as per ITR of current year and closing WDV of fixed assets as per ITR of preceding year. The assessee stated that some ... unexplained money and recompute the income accordingly. Coming to the other issue of additions, it is made on account of difference between opening WDV of Fixed assets as per ITR and :-13-: ITA. No:2489/CHNY/2024 closing WDV of Fixed assets as per ITR of the preceding year to the tune

ACIT, Mumbai vs. Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the cross-objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3705/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Reliance Industries Ltd., Room No. 559, 5Th Floor, 3Rd Floor Maker Chamber Iv, Aayakar Bhavan, New Marine Vs. Nariman Point, S.O. Lines, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacr 5055 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Agarwal/Ms. MokshaFor Respondent: Ms. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 115JSection 144BSection 144CSection 147Section 801B(9)

cost-benefit analysis of further litigation, opted to withdraw its claim of treating the participating interest as an intangible asset. Instead, it revised the opening WDV of relevant asset blocks, aligned them with the AO‘s classification, and recomputed both normal and additional depreciation for earlier assessment years, including ... which had already been factored in. Reliance Industries Ltd 49 ITA No. 3705/MUM/2024 & CO No. 153/MUM/2024 8.9 With respect to the impact on the opening WDV post tax holiday period, it was pointed out that the assessee had, during the course of assessment proceedings for AY 2016–17, made

Shree Yadvesh Transport Co . Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 13(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 6877/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 32

furnishing inaccurate particulars of income on excess depreciation of Rs. 28,04,248/- claimed oversight computed by considering as opening WDV as on 01.04.2014 instead of opening WDV as on 01.04.2015. The Appellant submits that the depreciation u/s 32 was claimed oversight be not treated as furnishing of inaccurate particulars ... assessment year 2017-18 placed at pg. No. 34 of the paper book. It is submitted that, closing WDV is the opening WDV for immediately succeeding assessment year. He submitted that, mistake that crept in stood corrected while preparing the audit report for the assessment year 2017-18 being

ITO, Ward-2(2), Pune vs. Annapurna Mahila Co-Op Credit Society Limited, Pune

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

ITA 2108/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 56Section 69CSection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

assessment proceedings, the assessee vide notice dated 30.12.2020 was asked to furnish the details and justification of depreciation claimed and substantial difference between Opening WDV of Fixed Assets as per ITR of current year and closing WDV of Fixed Asset as per ITR of preceding year. On the perusal ... filed by the society for the AY 2017-18 and 2018-19 for the relevant assessment year, it has been noticed that the opening WDV of the assets have been declared at Rs. 10.59.38.263/-on 01.04.2018 and the closing WDV of the FY 2016-17 relevant to the assessment year

DCIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai vs. Novartis India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of assessee and revenue and the cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed in the aforesaid terms

ITA 4700/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri B R Baskaran, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri J D Mistry, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C Kanojiya, CIT-DR

reached a compromise formula in AY 2008-09 in ITA No.7644/Mum/2012 dated 28th July, 2022), wherein the AO was directed to treat the opening WDV of assets transferred to the above said company as loss of assets. Hence, the co-ordinate bench held in AY 2003-04 that, in order

DCIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai vs. Novartis India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of assessee and revenue and the cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed in the aforesaid terms

ITA 4699/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri B R Baskaran, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri J D Mistry, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C Kanojiya, CIT-DR

reached a compromise formula in AY 2008-09 in ITA No.7644/Mum/2012 dated 28th July, 2022), wherein the AO was directed to treat the opening WDV of assets transferred to the above said company as loss of assets. Hence, the co-ordinate bench held in AY 2003-04 that, in order

Novartis India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of assessee and revenue and the cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed in the aforesaid terms

ITA 4574/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri B R Baskaran, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri J D Mistry, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C Kanojiya, CIT-DR

reached a compromise formula in AY 2008-09 in ITA No.7644/Mum/2012 dated 28th July, 2022), wherein the AO was directed to treat the opening WDV of assets transferred to the above said company as loss of assets. Hence, the co-ordinate bench held in AY 2003-04 that, in order

Novartis India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of assessee and revenue and the cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed in the aforesaid terms

ITA 4573/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri B R Baskaran, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri J D Mistry, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C Kanojiya, CIT-DR

reached a compromise formula in AY 2008-09 in ITA No.7644/Mum/2012 dated 28th July, 2022), wherein the AO was directed to treat the opening WDV of assets transferred to the above said company as loss of assets. Hence, the co-ordinate bench held in AY 2003-04 that, in order

ACIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai vs. Novartis India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of assessee and revenue and the cross

ITA 7799/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon'Ble & Shri B R Baskaran, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri J D Mistry, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C Kanojiya, CIT-DR

reached a compromise formula in AY 2008-09 in ITA No.7644/Mum/2012 dated 28th July, 2022), wherein the AO was directed to treat the opening WDV of assets transferred to the above said company as loss of assets. Hence, the co-ordinate bench held in AY 2003-04 that, in order

Novartis India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of assessee and revenue and the cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed in the aforesaid terms

ITA 7733/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri B R Baskaran, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri J D Mistry, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C Kanojiya, CIT-DR

reached a compromise formula in AY 2008-09 in ITA No.7644/Mum/2012 dated 28th July, 2022), wherein the AO was directed to treat the opening WDV of assets transferred to the above said company as loss of assets. Hence, the co-ordinate bench held in AY 2003-04 that, in order

Deputy Commissinoer of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai

ITA 470/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1282, 1283, 1284 & 1285/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 M/S. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd., Dare House, 2Nd Floor, No.2, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai-600 001. V. The Dcit, Non Corporate Circle-8, Chennai. [Pan: Aabcc 6633 K] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.470, 1339, 1438, 1462 & 1463/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2018-19, 2011-12, 2016-17 & 2017-18 The Dcit, Non Corporate Circle-8, Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) M/S. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd., Dare House, 2Nd Floor, No.2, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai-600 001. [Pan: Aabcc 6633 K] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Mr. Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate; Mr. Balachandar, Fca Department By Mr. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing 22.01.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 19.03.2025

Section 115JSection 14ASection 2Section 37(1)

1463/Chny/2024 (AYS 2012-13, 2018-19, 2011-12, 2016-17 & 2017-18) M/s. Cholamandalam MS - General Insurance Co. Ltd. :: 30 :: Asst. Year Opening WDV >180 days <180 days Depn. Claimed 2012-13 12,97,658 6,48,829 8.3 Since we note that there is no dispute regarding the depreciation

Deputy Commissioner of Incometax, Chennai vs. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai

ITA 1463/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1282, 1283, 1284 & 1285/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 M/S. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd., Dare House, 2Nd Floor, No.2, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai-600 001. V. The Dcit, Non Corporate Circle-8, Chennai. [Pan: Aabcc 6633 K] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.470, 1339, 1438, 1462 & 1463/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2018-19, 2011-12, 2016-17 & 2017-18 The Dcit, Non Corporate Circle-8, Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. M/S. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd., Dare House, 2Nd Floor, No.2, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai-600 001. [Pan: Aabcc 6633 K] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Department By : Mr. Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate; Mr. Balachandar, Fca : Mr. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.03.2025

For Respondent: Mr. Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate
Section 115JSection 14ASection 2Section 37(1)

1463/Chny/2024 (AYS 2012-13, 2018-19, 2011-12, 2016-17 & 2017-18) M/s. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. :: 30 :: Asst. Year Opening WDV >180 days <180 days Depn. Claimed 2012-13 12,97,658 6,48,829 8.3 Since we note that there is no dispute regarding the depreciation