passive user — 21 judgments | BharatTax

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)

could not commenced production activity for want of orders. He therefore pleaded that Ld. CIT(A) has rightly considered assessee as a passive user of the machinery. Ld.AR also referred to Note No. 26 of notes to financial statements annexed in paper book at Page No. 81 stating that ... does not 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, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAGNUM POWER GENERATION LTD., NEW DELHI

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

ITA 2509/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), MS. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member)

Section 143(2)

been interpreted by the Courts to have a wider meaning so as to include not only the actual user but also the passive user. Further, the allowance for depreciation does not depend upon actual working of the machinery, it is sufficient if the assessee for the purpose of business employs

INDIA FLYSAFE AVIATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-12(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 1582/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Meenakshi Dohare, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(3)

Service (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 123 ITR 404 has held that where an assessee puts assets ready for use that amounts to passive user and in such a case depreciation must be allowed, if claimed by the assessee. The Supreme Court has held in R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala

M/S POORNACHAND AGRAWAL, BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 104/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 104/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Pooranchand Agrawal C/O. Bagadia Enterprises, Near Shiv Talkies, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495001 Pan : Aaifp8483G

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

assessee cannot be accepted. 12 M/s. Pooranchand Agrawal Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 12. Apart from that, the Ld. AR submitted that as the “passive user” of an asset also satisfies the pre-condition of the user of the same for business; therefore, merely because the aforesaid tractor/grade dozer ... assessee and is kept on standby in the course of running its business, then it can safely be concluded that there is a passive user of the said asset for the business of the assessee. However, in the present case of the assessee before us, as the assessee had neither

THE ACIT - 14(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S PFIZER LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the ld AO for assessment year

ITA 1777/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. C. Selvamani CIT DR

Section 143Section 32

respect to that the refinery plant was ready for use but was not used and therefore the honourable High Court held that even the passive user of the asset is also a user of that particular asset. Para no 9 of the order of the ITAT [2013] 35 taxmann.com

PFIZER LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT-14(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the ld AO for assessment year

ITA 1620/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. C. Selvamani CIT DR

Section 143Section 32

respect to that the refinery plant was ready for use but was not used and therefore the honourable High Court held that even the passive user of the asset is also a user of that particular asset. Para no 9 of the order of the ITAT [2013] 35 taxmann.com

PFIZER LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-14(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the ld AO for assessment year

ITA 3736/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. C. Selvamani CIT DR

Section 143Section 32

respect to that the refinery plant was ready for use but was not used and therefore the honourable High Court held that even the passive user of the asset is also a user of that particular asset. Para no 9 of the order of the ITAT [2013] 35 taxmann.com

DCIT - 14(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S PFIZER LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the ld AO for assessment year

ITA 3694/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. C. Selvamani CIT DR

Section 143Section 32

respect to that the refinery plant was ready for use but was not used and therefore the honourable High Court held that even the passive user of the asset is also a user of that particular asset. Para no 9 of the order of the ITAT [2013] 35 taxmann.com

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. THE FERTILIZER CORPORATION OF INDIA, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for A

ITA 3357/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Sarita Kumari, CIT, DR

Section 143Section 143(3)

judgments, it stands settled that the assessee should have used the asset for the whole of assessment year in question to claim full depreciation. Passive user of the asset is also recognized as 'user for purpose of business'. This passive user is interpreted to mean that the asset is kept ... active employment or the actual working of a machinery, plant or building in the business, etc. On the other hand, wider meaning would include passive user of the same in the business. After taking note of the various judgments, the Court opined that survey of those decisions clearly shows that

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. THE FERTILIZER CORPORATION OF INDIA, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for A

ITA 3356/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Sarita Kumari, CIT, DR

Section 143Section 143(3)

judgments, it stands settled that the assessee should have used the asset for the whole of assessment year in question to claim full depreciation. Passive user of the asset is also recognized as 'user for purpose of business'. This passive user is interpreted to mean that the asset is kept ... active employment or the actual working of a machinery, plant or building in the business, etc. On the other hand, wider meaning would include passive user of the same in the business. After taking note of the various judgments, the Court opined that survey of those decisions clearly shows that

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. THE FERTILIZER CORPORATION OF INDIA, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for A

ITA 3355/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Sarita Kumari, CIT, DR

Section 143Section 143(3)

judgments, it stands settled that the assessee should have used the asset for the whole of assessment year in question to claim full depreciation. Passive user of the asset is also recognized as 'user for purpose of business'. This passive user is interpreted to mean that the asset is kept ... active employment or the actual working of a machinery, plant or building in the business, etc. On the other hand, wider meaning would include passive user of the same in the business. After taking note of the various judgments, the Court opined that survey of those decisions clearly shows that

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. THE FERTILIZER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for A

ITA 5468/DEL/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Sarita Kumari, CIT, DR

Section 143Section 143(3)

judgments, it stands settled that the assessee should have used the asset for the whole of assessment year in question to claim full depreciation. Passive user of the asset is also recognized as 'user for purpose of business'. This passive user is interpreted to mean that the asset is kept ... active employment or the actual working of a machinery, plant or building in the business, etc. On the other hand, wider meaning would include passive user of the same in the business. After taking note of the various judgments, the Court opined that survey of those decisions clearly shows that

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. THE FERTILIZER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for A

ITA 5467/DEL/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Sarita Kumari, CIT, DR

Section 143Section 143(3)

judgments, it stands settled that the assessee should have used the asset for the whole of assessment year in question to claim full depreciation. Passive user of the asset is also recognized as 'user for purpose of business'. This passive user is interpreted to mean that the asset is kept ... active employment or the actual working of a machinery, plant or building in the business, etc. On the other hand, wider meaning would include passive user of the same in the business. After taking note of the various judgments, the Court opined that survey of those decisions clearly shows that

SPAN AIR PVT. LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-24(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2755/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaspan Air Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit 303, 3Rd Floor, Rasvilas Circle – 24(1) Salcon Plot No.D-1, New Delhi District – Central Saket, New Delhi-110 017 Pan No. Aaacs 2411 E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri M. R. Sahu, C.A. Revenue By Shri B. M. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 25.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.05.2023

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 32

submitted that since the vehicle was ready for use on the date of purchase i.e. on 22.09.2014, it satisfied the concept of ‘Passive User’ and since the vehicle was ready for use during the first half of F.Y. 2014-15, the assessee was entitled to claim 100% depreciation

DCIT 10 (2)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S MAHARASHTRA ELECTRONIC CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 8051/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – 10(2)(2) V. M/S. Maharashtra Electronics Room No. 216-A Corporation Limited Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Plot No. Am-3, Midc Cross Road “A” Marol Industrial Area, Andheri (E) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400093 Pan: Aaacm4980A (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri R.C. Jain Assessee By : Department By : Shri Achal Sharma

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 57

accounted. e) Depreciation (Including unabsorbed depreciation) for earlier years is an allowable deduction forming part of block of asset as there is user or passive user and interest received has to be considered as business income as the same is being earned to take care of expenses to the extent

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. JAGSON INTERNATIONAL LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.No.276/Del

ITA 276/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Rahul PrabhakarFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Maurya, CIT

Section 115JSection 14A

include not only cases where the machinefy, plant, etc., are actively employed but also cases where there is what may be described as a passive user of the same in the business. An asset can be said to be in use when it is kept ready for use. My attention

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. JAGSON INTERNATIONAL LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.No.276/Del

ITA 1002/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Rahul PrabhakarFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Maurya, CIT

Section 115JSection 14A

include not only cases where the machinefy, plant, etc., are actively employed but also cases where there is what may be described as a passive user of the same in the business. An asset can be said to be in use when it is kept ready for use. My attention

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. JAGSON INTERNATIONAL LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.No.276/Del

ITA 1001/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Rahul PrabhakarFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Maurya, CIT

Section 115JSection 14A

include not only cases where the machinefy, plant, etc., are actively employed but also cases where there is what may be described as a passive user of the same in the business. An asset can be said to be in use when it is kept ready for use. My attention

CIT vs. MANAK SHOES CO PVT LTD

ITA - 1856 / 2010HC Delhi11 May 2011

Section 143Section 147

1856/2010 Page 7 of 15 activity and no production by the assessee. He did not examine the issue as to whether there was any passive user of the machinery and the assessee was entitled to the depreciation or not. Thus, the reopening of the assessment was valid, and the ground ... applied his mind to the issue that the assessee was entitled to depreciation as there was a passive user of the machinery in question. He referred to and relied upon the judgment of this Court in Rakesh Agarwal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax,221 ITR 492 wherein

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. INSILCO LIMITED

In the result, the question of law framed by us is answered in favour

ITA - 1156 / 2008HC Delhi27 Feb 2009

Bench: The Tribunal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred 2009:Dhc:678-Db

For Appellant: Ms Prem Lata Bansal, Mr Sanjeev Rajpal & Mr MohanFor Respondent: Mr V.P. Gupta & Mr Basant Kumar

learned counsel submitted that the assessee had not used the emergency spares during the relevant period. The provisions of Section 32 does not contemplate „passive user‟ and hence depreciation could not have been permitted on the cost of the spares capitalized ... judgments of various High Courts to support his submission that Section 32 of the Act brings within its ambit even 2009:DHC:678-DB „passive user‟ for claim of depreciation. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee were CIT vs Pepsu Road Transport Corporation