“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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the result, Revenue Appeal for AY 2012-13 stands dismissed

ITA 1462/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr. Sandeep BagmarFor Respondent: Mr. Nilay Baran Som, CIT

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 Income Tax, Nungambakkam Chennai vs. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai

In the result, Revenue Appeal for AY 2012-13 stands dismissed

ITA 1438/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr. Sandeep BagmarFor Respondent: Mr. Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 115JSection 14ASection 2Section 37(1)

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

In the result, Revenue Appeal for AY 2012-13 stands dismissed

ITA 1339/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr. Sandeep BagmarFor Respondent: Mr. Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 115JSection 14ASection 2Section 37(1)

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Non Corp Ward 8, Chennai

In the result, Revenue Appeal for AY 2012-13 stands dismissed

ITA 1285/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr. Sandeep BagmarFor Respondent: Mr. Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 115JSection 14ASection 2Section 37(1)

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Non Corp Circle 8, Chennai

In the result, Revenue Appeal for AY 2012-13 stands dismissed

ITA 1284/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr. Sandeep BagmarFor Respondent: Mr. Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 115JSection 14ASection 2Section 37(1)

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Non Corp Circle 8, Chennai

ITA 1282/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Section 115JSection 14ASection 2Section 37(1)Section 40

during specified period, need to be give to assessee and assessee is noted to have claimed higher depreciation @50% as detailed hereunder: 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

Suzuki Motor Gujarat Pvt Ltd, Ahmedabad, Gujarat vs. Principle Commissoner of Income Tax, Ahmedanad-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 998/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263

erred in law in not appreciating that, inter alia, the depreciation 'actually allowed' in the preceding year is required to be reduced while computing opening WDV for the relevant year. 2.4. That the PCIT erred in not appreciating that the additional depreciation claimed by the appellant was neither disputed ... depreciation. The Ld. PCIT held that brought forward additional depreciation of Rs.156.00 crore from AY 2017-18 should have first been reduced from the opening WDV and thereafter current year’s normal and additional depreciation should have been computed for AY 2018-19. The Ld. PCIT has, accordingly, set- aside

Sacs Power Pvt. Ltd., Madurai vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Trichy

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

ITA 2159/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2159/Chny/2024 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sacs Power Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 3/314, Chinthamani Road, Vs. Income Tax, Rajaman Nagar Bus Stop, Circle-2(1), Madurai – 625 009. Trichy. [Pan: Aahcs 4952P]

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. G. Saratha, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)

income declaring loss of Rs.1,07,12,560/- on 15.10.2016. During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O found that assessee has taken opening WDV as on 01.04.2015 of Rs. 4,53,34,421/- as against WDV of Rs. 3,76,00,374/-as on 31.03.2015 . The A.O accordingly computed

Srl Construction Pvt Ltd, Jalna vs. ACIT, Central Circle 2, Aurangabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 847/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.847/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Srl Construction Pvt. Ltd., V The Acit, 197, Khasgaon, Jafrabad, S Central Circle-2, Jalna – 444203. Aurangabad. Pan: Aaqcs7227L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Prateekjha – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr.Dipak P.Ripote, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax(Central)-Nagpur, Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 08.03.2024 For A.Y.2019-20. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. A) On The Facts & Circumstance Prevailing In The Case & In Law, Honorable Pr. Cit (Central), Nagpur Has Erred In Not Considering The Submission Made By The Appellant In Fair And

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)

revenue. ITA No.847/PUN/2024 [A] 4.2 On verification of the Assessment order, it was noticed that there is a discrepancy in the figures of opening WDV, closing WDV as per the return (ITR 6) and the audit report. It is seen from the return of income (ITR-6), that the assessee ... shown tangible assets amounting to Rs.6,85,63,513/- in the opening WDV and further no addition of fixed assets has been shown during the year. The assessee has claimed depreciation of Rs.1,02,84,527/- at the rate of 15% and the same was also qualified

International Hospital Ltd. (Before Amalgamation M/S Escorts Hospital and Research Centre Ltd), New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-8(3), New Delhi

The appeals are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 3390/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Ircon Soma Tollway (P) Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Ltd., B-4/45, Ground Floor, Income Tax, Range-4, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aabci4622C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri VK Aggarwal, AR & Shri HritikFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250(6)Section 263

years and thereafter hand over the project to NHAI. 10.1 The assessee has claimed depreciation @ 25% amounting to Rs.205,20,77,794/-on the opening WDV plus capital expenditure ITA Nos.1197 & 1198/Del/2018 incurred during the year on built, operate and transfer road project. In fact, the project became partly operational

Silver Oak Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. ACIT-6, Pune

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

ITA 2589/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Miss Aarti ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

find that this is clearly a case of inadvertent mistake on part of the appellant, in as much as an incorrect figure for opening WDV of block of assets has been adopted for the purpose of computing the admissible depreciation. The mistake is purely an oversight. because both the figures ... excess 12 claim of depreciation, which is the subject matter of addition, was a result of oversight in adopting an incorrect figure for the opening WDV for block of assets. It has already been brought out in preceding paragraphs that both the figures of opening WDV for block of assets

Income Tax Officer, Chennai vs. Sanguine Media Limited, Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 480/CHNY/2024[2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jan 2025

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1594/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रण वष9 / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Sanguine Media Limited Ito बनाम/ Plot No.135A, 1St Floor, Non-Corporate Ward-20(5) Chandran Nagar Main Road, Chennai Vs. Chrompet, Chennai-600 044. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecs-2217-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.480/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रण वष9 / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ito M/S. Sanguine Media Limited बनाम/ Plot No.135A, 1St Floor, Non-Corporate Ward-10(6) Chennai Chandran Nagar Main Road, Vs. Chrompet, Chennai-600 044. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecs-2217-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Neeraj Mangla (Ca) (Virtual)- Ld.Ar " थ" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-12-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09-01-2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Mangla (CA) (Virtual)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT)-Ld. DR

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

rate of 60% on WDV of Rs.1271.19 Lacs. The closing WDV was thus Rs.508.47 Lacs. However, in AY 2011-12, the assessee again reflected opening WDV of Rs.1271.91 Lacs as against Rs.508.47 Lacs and in the process, the assessee claimed excess depreciation of Rs.456.21 Lacs. 2.3 During penalty proceedings ... made submissions on merits and submitted that excess claim of depreciation was attributable to clerical errors wherein the assessee company erroneously entered the same opening WDV of assets as that of previous year. The same was a bona-fide clerical error and the assessee had no intention to claim

Sanguine Media Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1594/CHNY/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Mangla (CA) (Virtual)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT)-Ld. DR

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Manju Dudala, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 665/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jan 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

Nakshatra Metals Private Limited, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 18(1), Delhi

The appeals are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1198/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri VK Aggarwal, AR & Shri HritikFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250(6)Section 263

ACIT-3(4), Mumbai vs. Acc Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.1 and 2 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3174/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vartik ChoksiFor Respondent: Dr. K. R. Subhash

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 250Section 32

depreciation allowed in the intimation is Rs. 169,40,03,533/-. The said error was due to data punching while entering the amount of opening WDV for the said block. The opening WDV for the block was Rs. 2348,47,31,362/- whereas in the return of income this ... Representative for the Assessee, that in the original as well as revised return of income the Assessee had claimed depreciation taking correct value of Opening WDV of Block of Plant & Machinery (15%) as INR.2348,47,31,362/- and that the only error was in punching the Opening WDV

DCIT Circle 27(1), New Delhi vs. United Drilling Tools Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5913/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Before Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 36(1)(va)

case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 5,48,77,532/- claimed @ 25% on opening WDV of intellectual property rights." 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the Assessee filed its return by declaring the total income ... Department contended that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 5,58,77,532/- claimed @25% on opening WDV of intellectual property rights. 13. The Ld. Departmental Representative relying on the findings and conclusion of the assessment order, submitted that

ACIT Cir-10(1), New Delhi, ITO, C. R. Building New Delhi vs. Hindukush Construction Pvt. Ltd., Sector, Tribhuvan Complex

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2017/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Acit, Circle 10(1), Hindukush New Delhi Vs Construction Pvt. Ltd. 4Th Room No. 419, Unit No. 143, First Floor, Floor, C.R. Building, C-28, Sector-33, New Delhi – 2 Tribhuvan Complex, Ishwar Nagar, Mathura Road, Southwest, Delhi – 68 (Pan: Aabch3439E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr Dr Respondent By None Date Of Hearing: 28/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 03/12/2024

Section 68

deleting the disallowance of Rs. 99,05,192/- on account of excess depreciation claimed, ignoring the fact that the assessee has drastically increased the opening WDV for the year under consideration from the closing WDV of preceding year i.e. AY 2015-16 without providing documentary evidences and having no business

Tarsem Bharti, Shimla vs. ITO, Ward-2, Shimla

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

ITA 102/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarsem BhartiFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

depreciation so claimed in the return of income, it was submitted that the depreciation has been claimed on the assets forming part of the opening WDV as well as certain additions made during the Financial Year relevant to the impugned Assessment Year. It was submitted that the details ... opening WDV as well as the addition under the respective block of assets have been duly disclosed in the return of income so filed by the assessee. It was submitted that as far as the depreciation on the opening WDV is concerned, there is clearly non application of mind

3A Composites India Private Limied, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4096/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 43(6)Section 50C

sale consideration of Rs.2,45,00,000/- and claimed depreciation of Rs.1,81,36,734/-. The working of the said deprecation is as under: Opening WDV Rate (%) Additions of block of building 19,92,74,531 10 78,19,306 Deductions 2,45,00,000 Deprecation ... accordingly, he worked out the deprecation at Rs.1,09,41,833/-. The working of the deprecation by the ld. A.O. is extracted as under: Opening WDV Rate (%) Additions of block of building 19,92,74,531 10 78,19,306 Deductions 9,76,75,509 Deprecation