← All Phrases

“user of asset”

DepreciationSection 32Section 327 judgments

DCIT CC 7(2).MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MAN INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 619/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-2021

For Respondent: Mr. K. Gopal
Section 14ASection 194ASection 40

acquired, user of the first year when the particular asset is acquired, user of the asset is required. In subsequent years, the user of asset is required. In subsequent years, t asset is required. In subsequent years, t individual assets is not required." individual assets is not required

M/S. PHILIPS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 2610/KOL/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm M/S Philips India Limited Rajarhat 4A, 5Th Floor, Ecospace The Dcit Business Park, Premises A4 Ii, Circle 11(1), Aayakar Bhavan, New Town, Chakpachuria, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Vs. Kolkata-700156 Kolkata-700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp9487A Assessee By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ar Revenue By : Shri Praveen Kishore, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT DR

case from A.Y. 2009-10 to 2020-21, by holding that the owner of the assets is entitled to deduction of depreciation and user of asset is entitled to deduction of rent. The operative part of the decision in A.Y. 2020-21 is extracted below: - “029. The issue raised

KANPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,KANPUR vs. ADDL.CIT, EXEMPTION RANGE, GHAZIABAD

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2202/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, /And Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Dayainder SinghFor Respondent: Sidhu
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 234B

above decisions, I am of the view of the view that since in the present case, exemption is allowed at the time of user of assets, It does not amount to double deduction and thus A. O Is directed to allow the claim of depreciation. This ground is allowed. Ground

KANPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,KANPUR vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION RANGE, GHAZIABAD

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2201/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, /And Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Dayainder SinghFor Respondent: Sidhu
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 234B

above decisions, I am of the view of the view that since in the present case, exemption is allowed at the time of user of assets, It does not amount to double deduction and thus A. O Is directed to allow the claim of depreciation. This ground is allowed. Ground

KANPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,KANPUR vs. ADDL.CIT, EXEMPTION RANGE, GHAZIABAD

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2200/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, /And Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Dayainder SinghFor Respondent: Sidhu
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 234B

above decisions, I am of the view of the view that since in the present case, exemption is allowed at the time of user of assets, It does not amount to double deduction and thus A. O Is directed to allow the claim of depreciation. This ground is allowed. Ground

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), , VIJAYAWADA vs. MITHRA KYOKUTO SPECIAL PURPOSE VEHICLES COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 473/VIZ/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam02 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.473/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Mithra Kyokuto Special Purpose Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax V. Vehicles Company Pvt Ltd., Circle – 3(1) P.B. No. 443, Gudavalli Vari Street Central Revenues Building Governorpet, Vijayawada - 520002 M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 520002 [Pan: Aagcm8134Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

point out to setting up of business, in our considered view. In these circumstances, we could not consider the assessee as a passive user of assets and hence depreciation claimed by the assessee could not be allowed in the absence of any evidences being produced for the installation

DCIT-CC-III, LUDHIANA vs. M/S LAXMI ENERGY & FOODS LTD.,, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 33/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 33/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Dcit, Vs. M/S Laxmi Energy & Foods बनाम Ltd., Central Circle-Iii, Sco 18-19, Sector 9-D, Ludhiana Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaacl3147J अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rohit Sharma, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.07.2024 आदेश/Order Per Dr. Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 14A

which depreciation has been claimed, has been put to use is upon the assessee or it is for the revenue to disprove the user of asset? 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in allowing depreciation when the assessee has not discharged its initial burden in view