“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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hero Fincorp Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 11(1), Delhi, C.R. Building

ITA 2542/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice Presdient (), Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2542/Del/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year:2017-18 Hero Fincop Ltd., 34 Community Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(1) C. R. Building, New Delhi-110002 अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Pan:Aaach0157J Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv. & Shri Himanshu Aggarwal Adv. Revenue By Ms. Pooja Swaroop, Cit(Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14.01.2026 उद्घोषणाकीतारीख/Pronouncement On 16.01.2026 आदेश /Order Per Brajesh Kumar Singh, Am, The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of ‘Hire Purchase Leasing & Finance'. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac)/(First Appellate Authority Hereinafter Referred As “Faa”), Delhi Dated 27.03.2024 Arising Out Of Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 29.12.2019For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Disallowance Of Provision For Collection Charges -Rs. 9,75,00,000/-

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 251(1)Section 56(2)(viib)

disregarding the documentary evidence(s) submitted by the appellant substantiating that the purchase of motor vehicle and it being put to use on 31.03.2017. 11. That the NFAC erred on facts and in law in returning ex-parte findings, that too, on conjectures and surmises, without confronting the same ... which clearly shows that on the evening of 31.03.2017, the assessee was not using the vehicle and, therefore, it was not put to use. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the depreciation. 8.1 The Ld. CIT(A) noted that the vehicle for which the depreciation was claimed being Mercedes Benz was actually

Income Tax Officer, Ferozepur vs. Ms.Jatin Agro, Fort Road

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 104/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Ito, Ward-3(1), Vs. M/S Jatin Agro Fort Road, Ferozepur. 152-P, Ferozepur. [Pan:-Aarpm5393F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ashray Sarna, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Sunil Gautam, Cit. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 35A

learned Assessing Officer. The newly constructed I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/202 2 Assessment Years: 2014-15 and 2017-18 5 warehouse was put to use for purpose of storage of agricultural produce, the income earned by the Appellant is out of lease of warehouse facility and earned income from operation

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Ferozepur vs. Ms.Jatin Agro, Fort Road

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 103/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 35A

Sh. Devendra Dutt Pant, Haridwar vs. DCIT, Uttarkahand

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 149/DDN/2025[2106-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun14 Jan 2026AY 2106-2017

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 54BSection 54E

Bench observed that to ascertain the true character and the nature of the land, it must be seen whether it has been put to use for agricultural purposes for a reasonable span of time prior to the relevant date and further whether on the relevant date the land was intended ... put to use for agricultural purposes for a reasonable span of time in the future. Examining the facts of the case from the said point of view, the Bench held that the agreement entered into by the assessee with the Housing Society is the crucial circumstance since it showed that

Ranajit Suresh Rajamane, Solapur vs. ITO, Ward 1, Pandharpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1678/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1678/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ranajit Suresh Rajamane, Vs Ito Ward 1, Shukrawar Peth, Pandharpur Tembhurni Madha Solapur- 413211 Maharashtra Pan-Bmepr3878N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 54Section 548Section 54BSection 54B(1)Section 69A

attracting section 54. In the instant case, the whole consideration was paid, possession of the flat was obtained and it was actually put to use for dwelling within four months, as a result exemption contemplated u/s 34 was clearly attracted." 8. We may further like to add here that

ACIT-CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. Lodha Developers Limited (Formerly Known As Macrotech Developers Limited), Mumbai

ITA 4754/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT

Narendra Sevantilal Parikh (HUF), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, 25(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 5233/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi a/w Ms. VinitaFor Respondent: Shri Praveen K. Srivastav, Sr. D.R

Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 17Section 250

more. 13. Depreciation Chart alongwith copies of Purchase Bills of newly acquired assets/Addition to Fixed Assets and proof of put to use during the year. 14. Details of income claimed exempt in computation of total income, if any, and working of disallowance u/s 14A r. w. s Rule

Reliance Retail Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 8(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3509/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

Section 143(3)Section 194C

verification of additions made to fixed assets on 30 and 31 March of 2021 without appreciating the fact that the assets have been put to use in FY 2020-21/capitalized after issuance of completion certificate from the site engineers and acquired during the year/in earlier years” 2. Briefly stated ... initial expectation of the software was complete and the software could go live on the production. Since the software was finally accepted and put to use only in the AY 2021-22 and therefore, the AO has rightly accepted the claim of the Assessee of capitalization of such assessment

Windston Springs Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT -8(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2015-16 is allowed

ITA 704/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT D.R

Section 36(1)(iii)Section 50

buildings had ceased to exist on 07.01.2014, being the date of sale of the old building, as the newly constructed building was not put to use before 31.03.2014. The Assessing Officer accordingly computed short-term capital gain under section 50 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and made an addition ... Assessing Officer further disallowed depreciation of Rs. 10,027/- on the ground that the new building was not put to use before the end of the year. He also disallowed interest of Rs. 3,75,097/- on ITA No. 704 & 703/Mum/2025 Windston Springs Private Limited :- 3 -: borrowed funds utilised

Windston Springs Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT -8(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2015-16 is allowed

ITA 703/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT D.R

Section 36(1)(iii)Section 50

ACIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad vs. Vk Warehousing Enterprises, Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee firm and

ITA 881/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Vaishnav, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Dhivahar, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234BSection 271(1)(b)Section 40Section 68Section 69Section 69CSection 801B

proceeded on the premise that the assessee firm had claimed depreciation on capital work-in-progress relating to incomplete warehouses which were not put to use during the year. However, it is seen from the "written submissions" filed before the CIT(A) that the assessee firm had specifically contended that

Vk Warehousing Enterprises, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee firm and the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our observations recorded hereinabove

ITA 737/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.737/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18) M/S. V K Warehousing Enterprises, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Circle 6(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aakfv3288R (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.881/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. V K Warehousing Enterprises, Circle 6(1), Hyderabad. Vs. Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Rajesh Vaishnav, C.A. राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri P. Dhivahar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/01/2026

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Vaishnav, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Dhivahar, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234BSection 271(1)(b)Section 40Section 69Section 69CSection 801B

proceeded on the premise that the assessee firm had claimed depreciation on capital work-in-progress relating to incomplete warehouses which were not put to use during the year. However, it is seen from the “written submissions” filed before the CIT(A) that the assessee firm had specifically contended that

Satara Engineering Projects and Equipments Private Limited, Satara vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Satara

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

ITA 2450/PUN/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jan 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2450/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2024-25

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar &For Respondent: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

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

Shree Hatkeshwara Translines, Pune vs. Ass Commissioner, Income Tax Department Pune

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

ITA 2284/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2284/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Vihit ShahFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhivare

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

mistake committed by the assessee in the past of capitalizing the interest paid on the loans taken for acquiring assets which have been put to use during the year was incorrect and the assessee is entitled to interest expenditure incurred during the year. We however find that assessee has failed

Icici Securities Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai -4, Mumbai

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

ITA 3766/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80G

observed that the Assessing Officer had failed to verify the utilisation of borrowed funds and their nexus with acquisition of assets not yet put to use. Invoking the proviso to section 36(1)(iii), the learned Principal Commissioner held that interest attributable to such assets was liable to be capitalised ... assets under CWIP. Invoking the proviso to section 36(1)(iii), it was held that interest attributable to acquisition of assets not yet put to use could not be allowed as a revenue deduction. 45. Per contra, the assessee consistently maintained that the borrowed funds were utilised entirely for regular

Friends Salt Works and Allied Industries, Gandhidham vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Gandhidham

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, in above terms

ITA 169/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot02 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri K. C. Thacker, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Puglia, Ld. (CIT) DR

Section 143(3)

there was no prohibition to claiming interest paid in respect of borrowings for acquisition of capital assets till such time it is first put to use in subject assessment year” “Temporary approach road, central control room/store, Transformer yard, Grid line, metering yard, vacuum circuit breakers, additional meeting yard and earth

Friends Salt Works & Allied Inds., Gandhidham vs. The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range Gandhidham, Gandhidham

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, in above terms

ITA 99/RJT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot02 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri K. C. Thacker, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Puglia, Ld. (CIT) DR

Section 143(3)

M/S. Sahajanand Laser Technology Ltd., Gandhinagar vs. The DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 16/AHD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 15 & 16/Ahd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14)

For Appellant: Ms. Arti N Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, CIT. DR

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 35

Special Economic Zone Re-investment Reserve Account is to be utilised— (i) for the purposes of acquiring machinery or plant which is first put to use before the expiry of a period of three years following the previous year in which the reserve was created; and (ii) until the acquisition ... along with the return of income for the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such plant or machinery was first put to use. (3) Where any amount credited to the Special Economic Zone Re-investment Reserve Account under clause (ii) of sub-section (1),— (a) has been

M/S. Sahajanand Laser Technology Ltd., Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 15/AHD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 15 & 16/Ahd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14)

For Appellant: Ms. Arti N Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, CIT. DR

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 35

Maithan Ceramic Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle 7(1), Kolkata

ITA 1944/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jan 2026AY 2011-2012

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Himmatsinghka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Lakra, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 269S

bank loans, 11. A statement on addition to fixed assets during the year and the date with effect from which, the same were put to use, 12. Reconciliation statement of gross receipt with reference to Form 26AS, 13. A write up on the reasons for high claim of refund