← All Phrases

“put to use”

DepreciationSection 32Section 321,059 judgments

The decision most relied on for put to use is Challapalli Sugars Ltd. v. CIT (98 ITR 167), cited in 185 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on put to use

Challapalli Sugars Ltd. v. CIT
98 ITR 167 · 1975 · Supreme Court
185
citing judgments

Interest on borrowed capital utilized for acquiring a capital asset is capitalized until business commences. Once business is set up, this interest is deductible under section 36(1)(iii) even if the asset has not yet been put to use, accepting commercial accounting standards in the absence of contrary statutory provisions.

CIT v. Rittal India (P) Limited
380 ITR 423 · 2016 · High Court
121
citing judgments

Additional depreciation is allowable under section 32(1)(iia) for new machinery or plant even when put to use for less than 180 days, with the unabsorbed balance available for claim in the subsequent year.

Capital Bus Service Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
123 ITR 404 · 1980 · High Court
91
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. Shri T.P. Textiles (P.) Ltd.
394 ITR 483 · 2017 · High Court
73
citing judgments

An assessee is entitled to claim the balance 10% of additional depreciation in the succeeding assessment year if the new plant and machinery were put to use for less than 180 days in the previous year.

Bharti Airtel v. ITO (TDS)
67 Taxmann.com 223 · 2016 · High Court
53
citing judgments

Payment for human intervention to install or put equipment in place, distinct from human intervention involved in the transportation of calls between networks, does not constitute Fee for Technical Services (FTS) under section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act.

(1) DCIT v. Core Healthcare Ltd.
251 ITR 61 · 2001 · High Court
49
citing judgments

Interest paid on money borrowed for acquiring machinery is deductible under Section 36(1)(iii) even if the machinery is not put to use in the year of borrowing. This principle applies to the 'for the purpose of business' test for borrowed capital.

DCIT v. Cosmo Films Ltd.
139 ITD 628 · 2012 · ITAT
48
citing judgments

The balance 50% of additional depreciation, for new machinery or plant put to use for less than 180 days in the year of acquisition, is allowable in the immediately succeeding assessment year. The second proviso to Section 32(1)(iia) restricts only the allowance for the first year, not the total benefit.

PCIT v. IDMC Ltd.
393 ITR 441 · 2017 · High Court
45
citing judgments

Additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) is available for machinery purchased in a prior year but installed and put to use in the current previous year. Eligibility for the claim depends on the date of installation and use, not just the date of purchase.

Judgments citing put to use

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare India Private Limited, Haryana

ITA 1246/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 250Section 40Section 80Section 80I

approved scheme was negative. h. Depreciation on non-existent asset or self-generated goodwill is not allowable. i. In absence of asset put to use, depreciation cannot arise. j. Self-generated goodwill is not a depreciable asset under section-32 Accordingly, the AO disallowed the claim of depreciation of Rs.6

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(1)(1) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare India Private Limited, Gurgaon

ITA 1245/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 250Section 40Section 80Section 80I

approved scheme was negative. h. Depreciation on non-existent asset or self-generated goodwill is not allowable. i. In absence of asset put to use, depreciation cannot arise. j. Self-generated goodwill is not a depreciable asset under section-32 Accordingly, the AO disallowed the claim of depreciation of Rs.6

Dharmaraj Rice Mill, Baliguni, Nanoor vs. ACIT, Circle3, Suri

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

ITA 2329/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jul 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: us, the Ld. AR pointed out that the entire interest outgoing deserved to be treated as a revenue expenditure. It was averred that the assessee had gone in for extensive renovation of plant and machinery and the new plant and machinery was put to commercial use only from 01.04.2016. To this effect a certificate dated 30.03.2016 was placed before us for perusal. It was argued that the interest expense was allowable, in its entirety, as a revenue expense.

Section 250Section 44A

averments of Ld. AR/DR and also gone through the records before us. The admitted facts are that the new plant and machinery was put to use only after 01.04.2016 (after the present assessment year) and justifiably no depreciation has been booked on such plant and machinery for the year under ... audit report u/s 44AB, the plant and machinery valued at Rs. 328,60,242/- and building valued at Rs.39,90,809/- were put to use on 31/03/2016 whereas in utilisation certificate submitted by the assessee, these assets were put to use with effect from

Gayatri Energy Ventures Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 467/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA KC Devdas & CA Swapnil DeshukhFor Respondent: Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

from the date on which the capital was borrowed for acquisition of the asset fill the date on which such asset was first put to use, shall not be allowed as deduction. Explanation. - Recurring subscriptions paid periodically by shareholders, or subscribers in Mutual Benefit Societies which fulfill such conditions

ACIT, Ltu-2, Chennai vs. Ashok Leyland Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 2618/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

Rs.13,996/-. 5.1 The dispute remaining before us is that, whether the energy saving devices falling under the 80% block, which was installed & put to use at the factory premises of the assessee, is in the nature of 'plant & machinery' and therefore eligible for additional depreciation

Ashok Leyland Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

ITA 2330/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2330/Chny/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd., 1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aaaca 4651 L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Acit, Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2618/Chny/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Acit, Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Chennai. V. M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd., 1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aaaca 4651 L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By : Mr.R. Vijayaraghavan, Adv. & Mr.Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Adv. Department By : Mr.A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2025

For Appellant: Mr.R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

Rs.13,996/-. 5.1 The dispute remaining before us is that, whether the energy saving devices falling under the 80% block, which was installed & put to use at the factory premises of the assessee, is in the nature of 'plant & machinery' and therefore eligible for additional depreciation

M/S. Barrows Blue Bells School, Baharaich vs. The I.T.O. (E), Lucknow

Accordingly, the same are being dismissed as having become academic in nature

ITA 362/LKW/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 147Section 148

use' or obsolescence. It is computed as that part of the cost of asset which will not be recovered when the asset is put to use. At the end of the effective life the asset ceases to earn revenue. Depreciation is nothing but decrease in value of property through wear ... use' or obsolescence. It is computed as part of the cost of asset which will not be recovered when the asset is put to use. Even the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that depreciation should be allowed even on assets received on transfer on which no cost

M/S. Barrows Blue Bells School, Baharaich vs. The I.T.O. (E), Lucknow

Accordingly, the same are being dismissed as having become academic in nature

ITA 361/LKW/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 147Section 148

use' or obsolescence. It is computed as that part of the cost of asset which will not be recovered when the asset is put to use. At the end of the effective life the asset ceases to earn revenue. Depreciation is nothing but decrease in value of property through wear ... use' or obsolescence. It is computed as part of the cost of asset which will not be recovered when the asset is put to use. Even the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that depreciation should be allowed even on assets received on transfer on which no cost

M/S. Barrows Blue Bells School, Baharaich vs. The I.T.O. (E), Lucknow

ITA 360/LKW/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NIKHIL CHOUDHARY

Raja Construction, Mumbai vs. DCIT 27(3), Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3081/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 32

truck crane where the crane remains mounted and attached to the truck when carried and even at the destination where it is put to use is not a relevant factor at all. Though not required to be loaded or unloaded like other goods transported in carriage of freight, the crane

Vivrn Foods Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 364/RPR/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 Jun 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.364/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2024-25 Vivrn Foods Private Limited C/O. Rajkumar Mundra, Village-Sarona, Raipur-492 009 (C.G.) Pan: Aahcv4005G

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

Explanation 2.—Where in the case of a person, any machinery or plant or any part thereof previously used for any purpose is put to use by the company and the total value of such machinery or plant or part thereof does not exceed twenty per cent of the total

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad vs. N K Proteins Private Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, no question of law arises

ITA 546/AHD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR
Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

erred in deleting the disallowance of additional depreciation of Rs.1,27,09,375/- without appreciating the fact that the assets were installed and put to use after 30th September, hence only 10% of additional depreciation is allowable till A.Y. 2016-17 as the 3rd proviso to section 32(1) took ... Disallowance of additional depreciation of Rs.1,27,09,375/- :- 12. The Assessing Officer disallowed additional depreciation for the reason that such assets were put to use in preceding AY for less than 180 days and therefore assessee is eligible for depreciation at only 50% rate in preceding year and balance

N K Proteins Pvt. Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, no question of law arises

ITA 464/AHD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR
Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

erred in deleting the disallowance of additional depreciation of Rs.1,27,09,375/- without appreciating the fact that the assets were installed and put to use after 30th September, hence only 10% of additional depreciation is allowable till A.Y. 2016-17 as the 3rd proviso to section 32(1) took ... Disallowance of additional depreciation of Rs.1,27,09,375/- :- 12. The Assessing Officer disallowed additional depreciation for the reason that such assets were put to use in preceding AY for less than 180 days and therefore assessee is eligible for depreciation at only 50% rate in preceding year and balance

ACIT, Circle Ltu-1, Chennai vs. Carborundum Universal Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 140/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos. 139, 140 & 117/Chny/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2018-19)

For Appellant: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan
Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40

virtue of the proviso to clause (iia) of Section 32, only 10% can be claimed in one year, if plant and machinery is put to use for less than 180 days in the said financial year and the balance 10% additional deduction can be availed in the subsequent assessment year

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Ltu-1, Chennai vs. Carborundum Universal Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 139/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos. 139, 140 & 117/Chny/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2018-19)

For Appellant: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan
Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40

virtue of the proviso to clause (iia) of Section 32, only 10% can be claimed in one year, if plant and machinery is put to use for less than 180 days in the said financial year and the balance 10% additional deduction can be availed in the subsequent assessment year

ACIT, Ltu Circle 1 Chennai, Chennai vs. Carborundum Universal Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 117/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos. 139, 140 & 117/Chny/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2018-19)

For Appellant: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan
Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40

virtue of the proviso to clause (iia) of Section 32, only 10% can be claimed in one year, if plant and machinery is put to use for less than 180 days in the said financial year and the balance 10% additional deduction can be availed in the subsequent assessment year

New Rampgreen Technologies Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-7(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 161/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) New Rampgreen Technologies Ito Ward 7(2)(1) Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 126 Centre Gd Ambedkar Marg Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Wadala So,Mumbai-400 031. M.K. Road Mumbai-400 020. Pan : Aadcv9341F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali AafaquiFor Respondent: Shri Nikunj Jain
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

crore was paid on 27.1.2015. The Ld. AO disallowed 50% of the depreciation claimed by appellant as the same was put to use less than 180 days. 2 3. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition by adjudicating that the appellant company should be the owner of asset and put ... change of opinion. 5. The Ld. AR of the appellant has argued before the ITAT that the even though the asset was put to use for part of the year also, the company is entitled to full depreciation and the disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 38 lakhs is incorrect. Reliance

Shailesh Champaklal Vakharia, Nagpur vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income (Central) Circle - 1(1), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 344/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Smt. Veena AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 69A

also erred grievously in not confronting the appellant with the said 'evidence' collected behind his back and which has also been put to use against him. This also is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The appellant has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon. Jurisdictional

DCIT., Circle-13(1), Hyderabad vs. The Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Kothagudem

In the result, assessee’s appeals for the A

ITA 308/HYD/2024[AY-2020-2]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.283, 284 & 286/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Singareni Collieries Vs. Acit, Circle – 1 Company Limited Khammam & Kothagudem Acit, Circle 13(1) Pan:Aaact8873F Hyderabad & आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.300, 301 & 308/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Vs. Singareni Collieries Dy. Cit, Circle 13(1) Company Limited Hyderabad Kothagudem Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Balakrishna, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These 3 Sets Of Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against The 3 Separate Orders All Dated 30/01/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Ys 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21 Respectively. The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Have Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeals For 3 A.Ys:

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri B Balakrishna, CIT (DR)
Section 40A(9)

first proviso to clause (iia), as the case may be, is acquired by the assessee during the previous year and is put to use for the purposes of business or profession for a period of less than one hundred and eighty days in that previous year, the deduction under this ... first proviso to clause (iia), as the case may be, is acquired by the assessee during the previous year and is put to use for the purposes of business for a period of less than one hundred and eighty days in that previous year, and the deduction under this

DCIT, Circle-13(1), Hyderabad vs. The Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Kothagudem

In the result, assessee’s appeals for the A

ITA 301/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, Advocate
Section 194Section 32ASection 37Section 40Section 40A(9)

first proviso to clause (iia), as the case may be, is acquired by the assessee during the previous year and is put to use for the purposes of business or profession for a period of less than one hundred and eighty days in that previous year, the deduction under this ... first proviso to clause (iia), as the case may be, is acquired by the assessee during the previous year and is put to use for the purposes of business for a period of less than one hundred and eighty days in that previous year, and the deduction under this