“put to use”

WELKIN DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. COMM OF INCOME TAX, CC 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

been inserted to\ndisentitle claim of interest on funds borrowed for acquisition of capital asset for the\nperiod upto the asset is put to use. The term 'put to use' here applies to capital asset only\nbecause a capital asset is held to facilitate the business activity and some time ... Officer was not justified in treating the two projects on stand-\nalone basis and also that the property in MRC Nagar was not put to use. Further, the Tribunal\n\nobserved that the purchase of inventory in the course of carrying on business should be\nreckoned as continuation of same

WELKIN DEVEOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT.COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CC 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadish

been inserted to disentitle claim of interest on funds borrowed for acquisition of capital asset for the period upto the asset is put to use. The term 'put to use' here applies to capital asset only because a capital asset is held to facilitate the business activity and some time ... Officer was not justified in treating the two projects on stand- alone basis and also that the property in MRC Nagar was not put to use. Further, the Tribunal or termed as extension of business activity. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the assessee has offered substantial income from the Atlantic

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE RETAIL LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

related to development of the AJIO portal but was incurred for promotion and scaling up of website operations after the platform had been put to use. The assessee pointed out that the AJIO business had commenced during F.Y. 2016-17, when the first online sale was made ... approximately Rs. 454.62 crore, with about 7.18 lakh registered customers as on 31.03.2019. According to the assessee, the assets were therefore already put to use and the marketing expenditure was incurred in the normal course of business. 44. The assessee further contended that the marketing expenditure consisted of advertisement, business

RELIANCE RETAIL LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 8(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed,\nwhereas the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

approximately Rs. 454.62 crore, with about\n7.18 lakh registered customers as on 31.03.2019. According to\nthe assessee, the assets were therefore already put to use and the\nmarketing expenditure was incurred in the normal course of\nbusiness.\n44. The assessee further contended that the marketing\nexpenditure consisted of advertisement, business ... capable of operating in the\nmanner intended by management were required to be capitalized\nuntil the date the asset was put to use. The Assessing Officer\nreferred to the provisions of AS-26 and observed that\namortization of expenditure on intangible assets should\ncommence from the date when the asset

VIMALA JAYANTILAL PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE 17(1), MUMBAI

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

Machinery That the Ld.\nAO erred in disallowing additional depreciation of Rs 29,07,161/- on the ground\nthat the machinery was not put to use for more than 182 days, without\nappreciating the business nature, facts and relevant explanations/evidences\nfurnished. The appellant prays that the additional depreciation be allowed ... n30.03.202\n3\n4100,000/-\n307500/-\n4,10,000/-\n717500/-\nProclaim\nMachin\n15.12.202\n3\n10,00,000/-\n75000/-\n100,000/\n1,75,000/-\nii. Put to Use to Machine: assessee is a Civil Contractor and is engaged in sub-\ncontract works of MCGM, Railways, builders/developers and private sector\ndepartment: like work

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI vs. SUPERWAYS ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue's appeals are dismissed and assessee's appeals are\npartly allowed

selling and\nadministrative Expenses of Rs. 28,99,812/-. Depreciation is not a direct\nexpenditure and is anyways allowable, once the asset is put to use, for\nthe business. The finance cost of Rs 11,12,20,647/- mainly comprises\ncharges related to Letter of credit facility and Bill discounting

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI vs. SUPERWAYS ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

selling and administrative Expenses of Rs. 28,99,812/-. Depreciation is not a direct expenditure and is anyways allowable, once the asset is put to use, for the business. The finance cost of Rs 11,12,20,647/- mainly comprises charges related to Letter of credit facility and Bill discounting

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI vs. SUPERWAYS ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

selling and administrative Expenses of Rs. 28,99,812/-. Depreciation is not a direct expenditure and is anyways allowable, once the asset is put to use, for the business. The finance cost of Rs 11,12,20,647/- mainly comprises charges related to Letter of credit facility and Bill discounting

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI vs. SUPERWAYS ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

selling and administrative Expenses of Rs. 28,99,812/-. Depreciation is not a direct expenditure and is anyways allowable, once the asset is put to use, for the business. The finance cost of Rs 11,12,20,647/- mainly comprises charges related to Letter of credit facility and Bill discounting

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI vs. SUPERWAYS ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

selling and administrative Expenses of Rs. 28,99,812/-. Depreciation is not a direct expenditure and is anyways allowable, once the asset is put to use, for the business. The finance cost of Rs 11,12,20,647/- mainly comprises charges related to Letter of credit facility and Bill discounting

SUPERWAYS ENTERPIRSES PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

selling and administrative Expenses of Rs. 28,99,812/-. Depreciation is not a direct expenditure and is anyways allowable, once the asset is put to use, for the business. The finance cost of Rs 11,12,20,647/- mainly comprises charges related to Letter of credit facility and Bill discounting

SUPERWAYS ENTERPIRSES PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

selling and administrative Expenses of Rs. 28,99,812/-. Depreciation is not a direct expenditure and is anyways allowable, once the asset is put to use, for the business. The finance cost of Rs 11,12,20,647/- mainly comprises charges related to Letter of credit facility and Bill discounting

SUPERWAYS ENTERPIRSES PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

selling and administrative Expenses of Rs. 28,99,812/-. Depreciation is not a direct expenditure and is anyways allowable, once the asset is put to use, for the business. The finance cost of Rs 11,12,20,647/- mainly comprises charges related to Letter of credit facility and Bill discounting

SUPERWAYS ENTERPIRSES PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

selling and administrative Expenses of Rs. 28,99,812/-. Depreciation is not a direct expenditure and is anyways allowable, once the asset is put to use, for the business. The finance cost of Rs 11,12,20,647/- mainly comprises charges related to Letter of credit facility and Bill discounting

SUPERWAYS ENTERPIRSES PRIVATE LIMITED LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

selling and\nadministrative Expenses of Rs. 28,99,812/-. Depreciation is not a direct\nexpenditure and is anyways allowable, once the asset is put to use, for\nthe business. The finance cost of Rs 11,12,20,647/- mainly comprises\ncharges related to Letter of credit facility and Bill discounting

SUPERWAYS ENTERPIRSES PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

selling and administrative Expenses of Rs. 28,99,812/-. Depreciation is not a direct expenditure and is anyways allowable, once the asset is put to use, for the business. The finance cost of Rs 11,12,20,647/- mainly comprises charges related to Letter of credit facility and Bill discounting

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-1(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawaldy. Commissioner Of Income- Vs Hindustan Petroleum Tax-1(1)(1), Corporation Limited Mumbai Petroleum House Jamshedji Tata Road, Marine Lines S.O Mumbai - 400020 (Pan: Aaach1118B) Appellant Respondent Present For: Assessee By : Ms. Hirali Desai, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.02.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1075143492(1) Dated 27.03.2025 Passed Against The Assessment Order By The Assessment Unit, U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144 Read With Sec. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 25.05.2023 For Ay 2015-16. 2. Grounds Taken By The Revenue Are Reproduced As Under: “. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 9,60,00,000/ - On Account Of Disallowance Of Investment Allowance Claimed U/S. 32Ac On Dispensing Units In Retail Outlets Ignoring The Fact That The Dispensing Units Do Not Fall Within The Meaning Of Plant & Hence, Not Eligible For Claim Of Deduction U/S. 32Ac.

completely ready for operations by the end of the F.Y. 2014-15; hence, the said asset cannot be said to be put to use during the F.Y. 2014-15.” 2.1. Assessee has filed an application under Rule 27 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 (ITAT Rules), dated