← All Phrases

“ready for use”

DepreciationSection 32Section 3294 judgments

The decision most relied on for ready for use is Capital Bus Service Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (123 ITR 404), cited in 91 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on ready for use

Capital Bus Service Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

123 ITR 404 · 1980 · High Court

citing judgments

Depreciation under section 32 is allowable even if an asset is not actively used, provided it is kept in a condition of readiness or is put ready for use, as this amounts to passive user.

CIT v. Refrigeration & Allied Industries Ltd.

247 ITR 12 · 2001 · High Court

citing judgments

An asset, once installed and kept in an operational condition for business use, is eligible for depreciation even if it is not actively used during the entire previous year due to external business reasons.

Whittle Anderson Ltd. v. CIT

79 ITR 613 · 1971 · High Court

citing judgments

An asset kept ready for use in a business is considered to be 'used' for the purpose of business, entitling the assessee to depreciation, even if it is not actively operated or was not used in prior years. Passive usage of an asset also qualifies for depreciation.

Dineshkumar Gulabchand Agrawal v. CIT

267 ITR 768 · 2004 · High Court

citing judgments

The asset must be actually used for the purpose of business to be eligible for depreciation, not merely ready for use.

CIT v. Viswanath Bhaskar Sathe

5 ITR 621 · 1937 · High Court

citing judgments

Depreciation allowance can be claimed for an asset even if it is not actively used in the business, as the term 'used' encompasses both passive and active user. Machinery kept idle may still depreciate.

CIT v. Geo Tech Construction Corporation

244 ITR 452 · 2000 · High Court

citing judgments

An asset can be considered 'used' for business purposes, entitling the assessee to depreciation, even if it was only passively used or kept ready for use. The definition of 'used' for depreciation purposes is broader than actual physical employment.

CIT v. Yamaha Motor India Pvt. Ltd.

328 ITR 297 · 2009 · High Court

citing judgments

An asset is considered 'used for the purpose of business' under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act if it is kept ready for use, even if not actually put to use during the relevant period. This interpretation allows for depreciation claims in such scenarios.

CIT v. Larsen & Toubro Ltd.

89 Taxmann.com 186 · 2018 · High Court

citing judgments

Depreciation is allowable on assets that are kept "ready for use," not just those in "actual use." This interpretation applies to the term "use" in Section 32 of the Income Tax Act.

Judgments citing ready for use

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

versus Oswal Agro Mills Ltd (2011) 238 CTR 113 Delhi in this case the Bhopal unit plant of the assessee was ready for use. iii. CIT versus vallabh glass works Ltd [2013] 38 taxmann.com 177 (Gujarat) ITA number 677 of 2013 wherein the facts were that an amount of Rs.4 ... Limited [INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 2088 OF 2013] of the Bombay High Court was also with 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

Income Tax Officer-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Andhra Pradesh Expressway Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 999/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2023AY 2014-2015

For Appellant: Shri Ajay VohraFor Respondent: Ms. N. V. Nadkarni (DR)

Section 32(1)(ii)

concession period of 11 years and 7 months, the assessee can start operating and collecting toll charges only when the project facility is ready for use. Therefore, until the project is completed and ready for use by vehicles or persons assessee cannot collect toll charges for user of the project

Income Tax Officer-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Andra Pradesh Expressway Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 998/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2023AY 2013-2014

For Appellant: Shri Ajay VohraFor Respondent: Ms. N. V. Nadkarni (DR)

Section 32(1)(ii)

concession period of 11 years and 7 months, the assessee can start operating and collecting toll charges only when the project facility is ready for use. Therefore, until the project is completed and ready for use by vehicles or persons assessee cannot collect toll charges for user of the project

Andhra Pradesh Expressway Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-10(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1528/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ajay VohraFor Respondent: Ms. N. V. Nadkarni (DR)

Section 32(1)(ii)

concession period of 11 years and 7 months, the assessee can start operating and collecting toll charges only when the project facility is ready for use. Therefore, until the project is completed and ready for use by vehicles or persons assessee cannot collect toll charges for user of the project

Andhra Pradesh Expressway Limited, Mumbai City vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1526/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ajay VohraFor Respondent: Ms. N. V. Nadkarni (DR)

Section 32(1)(ii)

concession period of 11 years and 7 months, the assessee can start operating and collecting toll charges only when the project facility is ready for use. Therefore, until the project is completed and ready for use by vehicles or persons assessee cannot collect toll charges for user of the project

M/S Andhra Pradesh Expressway Limited, Mumbai vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1525/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2023AY 2018-2019

For Appellant: Shri Ajay VohraFor Respondent: Ms. N. V. Nadkarni (DR)

Section 32(1)(ii)

concession period of 11 years and 7 months, the assessee can start operating and collecting toll charges only when the project facility is ready for use. Therefore, until the project is completed and ready for use by vehicles or persons assessee cannot collect toll charges for user of the project

Income Tax Officer-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Andhra Pradesh Expressway Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1523/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2023AY 2018-2019

For Appellant: Shri Ajay VohraFor Respondent: Ms. N. V. Nadkarni (DR)

Section 32(1)(ii)

concession period of 11 years and 7 months, the assessee can start operating and collecting toll charges only when the project facility is ready for use. Therefore, until the project is completed and ready for use by vehicles or persons assessee cannot collect toll charges for user of the project

Income Tax Officer-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Andhra Pradesh Expressway Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1522/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2023AY 2011-2012

For Appellant: Shri Ajay VohraFor Respondent: Ms. N. V. Nadkarni (DR)

Section 32(1)(ii)

concession period of 11 years and 7 months, the assessee can start operating and collecting toll charges only when the project facility is ready for use. Therefore, until the project is completed and ready for use by vehicles or persons assessee cannot collect toll charges for user of the project

Income Tax Officer-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Andhra Pradesh Expressway Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1521/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2023AY 2015-2016

For Appellant: Shri Ajay VohraFor Respondent: Ms. N. V. Nadkarni (DR)

Section 32(1)(ii)

concession period of 11 years and 7 months, the assessee can start operating and collecting toll charges only when the project facility is ready for use. Therefore, until the project is completed and ready for use by vehicles or persons assessee cannot collect toll charges for user of the project

Income Tax Officer-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Andhra Pradesh Expressway Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1000/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Ajay VohraFor Respondent: Ms. N. V. Nadkarni (DR)

Section 32(1)(ii)

concession period of 11 years and 7 months, the assessee can start operating and collecting toll charges only when the project facility is ready for use. Therefore, until the project is completed and ready for use by vehicles or persons assessee cannot collect toll charges for user of the project

DCIT, Circle- 25(1), New Delhi vs. Telecommunication Consultants India Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3801/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 3801/Del/2018, A.Y. 2013-14 Dcit, Vs. M/S.Telecommunication Circle-25(1), Consultants India Ltd. New Delhi 106, Plot No. 4, Vishwadeep Tower, District Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058 Pan : Aaact0061H Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 32

concession period of 11 years and 7 months, the assessee can start operating and collecting toll charges only when the project facility is ready for use. Therefore, until the project is completed and ready for use by vehicles or persons assessee cannot collect toll charges for user of the project

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)

allowed on the block of assets and not on any individual assets. The plant and machinery for manufacture of fertilizers was kept in ready to use condition by the assessee company. In this regard, the ld. AR rightly placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court ... asset is also recognized as 'user for purpose of business'. This passive user is interpreted to mean that the asset is kept ready for use. If this condition is satisfied, even when it is not used for certain reason in the concerned assessment year, the assessee would not be denied

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)

allowed on the block of assets and not on any individual assets. The plant and machinery for manufacture of fertilizers was kept in ready to use condition by the assessee company. In this regard, the ld. AR rightly placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court ... asset is also recognized as 'user for purpose of business'. This passive user is interpreted to mean that the asset is kept ready for use. If this condition is satisfied, even when it is not used for certain reason in the concerned assessment year, the assessee would not be denied

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)

allowed on the block of assets and not on any individual assets. The plant and machinery for manufacture of fertilizers was kept in ready to use condition by the assessee company. In this regard, the ld. AR rightly placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court ... asset is also recognized as 'user for purpose of business'. This passive user is interpreted to mean that the asset is kept ready for use. If this condition is satisfied, even when it is not used for certain reason in the concerned assessment year, the assessee would not be denied

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)

allowed on the block of assets and not on any individual assets. The plant and machinery for manufacture of fertilizers was kept in ready to use condition by the assessee company. In this regard, the ld. AR rightly placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court ... asset is also recognized as 'user for purpose of business'. This passive user is interpreted to mean that the asset is kept ready for use. If this condition is satisfied, even when it is not used for certain reason in the concerned assessment year, the assessee would not be denied

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)

allowed on the block of assets and not on any individual assets. The plant and machinery for manufacture of fertilizers was kept in ready to use condition by the assessee company. In this regard, the ld. AR rightly placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court ... asset is also recognized as 'user for purpose of business'. This passive user is interpreted to mean that the asset is kept ready for use. If this condition is satisfied, even when it is not used for certain reason in the concerned assessment year, the assessee would not be denied

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

purpose of the business" for claiming depreciation u/s 32 , the use of the asset may be active or passive i.e kept ready for use. Date of possession of asset and keeping ready for use in the business shall be date for claiming depreciation i.e 28.09.2014 thus assessee is entitled ... entire purchase price including the insurance before 30.09.2014 but the vehicle got registered on 22.11.2014. He 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

Dy CIT CC 1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 931/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115Section 32Section 32ASection 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND

Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 465/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115Section 32Section 32ASection 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND

Pramod Kumar Saxena, Uttar Pradesh vs. ACIT, Moradabad

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 3762/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

That captioned paver finishers have been put to use on 1.10.09 3. That various court has held that ever an asset was ready for use Depreciation shall be allowed. 4. That the appellant reserves the right to Add to and / or Amend, modify or withdraw the grounds outlined above before