“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

The Hindustan Times Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for the Asst Year 2010-11

ITA 1227/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshm/S. The Hindustan Times Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 18-20, Kg Marg, New Delhi Circle-16(1), New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaact4962F M/S. The Hindustan Times Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 18-20, Kg Marg, New Delhi Circle-16(1), New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaact4962F

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

fixtures in the fixed assets schedule and depreciation @ 10% was claimed by the assessee depending upon the date on which they were put to use in accordance with provisions of section 32 of the Act. The ld.AO disallow the depreciation claimed by the assessee on the ground that the paintings

The Hindustan Times Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for the Asst Year 2010-11

ITA 1226/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

The Hindustan Times Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for the Asst Year 2010-11

ITA 6512/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

M/S. the Hindustan Times Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for the Asst Year 2010-11

ITA 1629/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

M/S Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd., Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT-4, Kolkata

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1004/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263

virtue of the proviso referred to above, only 10 per cent can be claimed in one year, if plant and machinery is put to use for less than 180 days in the said financial year. This would necessarily mean that the balance 10 per cent additional deduction can be availed

Rugby Regency P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Range-21, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 653/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16 M/S. Rugby Regency P. Ltd. Vs. Addl. Cit, 37-Ring Road, Range-21, Lajpat Nagar-Iv, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 024 Pan Aagcr5908K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhavi, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 32Section 56(2)(viib)

consent and agreement of both the parties. Accordingly, it is onus of the appellant to prove that how the transfer of asset and put to use of the same has taken place in the your under consideration in light of the fact that the seller party has not recorded ... board resolution of M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Limited (seller) which could substantiate that the wind mill was transferred in its favor and was put to use before the end of year under consideration. In this regard it is also relevant to refer to the observation of the AO in Para

Toyota Kirloskar Motor Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 863/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Senthil Kumar N., D.R

Section 40A(2)

travelling ang sales promotion. 10.3.3 Further Royalty is paid by the taxpayer for using its technical knowhow. This technical knowhow is not put to use in trading activity. Trading activity does not require the expertise technology and know-how. Margins of the entity as a whole do not establish

D.C.I.T., Circle-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Birla Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross-objection of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1964/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........…..........................…..…..... Respondent Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] C.O. 39/Kol/2019 (A/O I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........….....................…..…..... Cross-Objector Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] Vs Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal By The Revenue & The Corresponding Cross Objections By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 30.05.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). First, We Take Up Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.1964/Kol/2019. I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 & C.O. 39/Kol/2019 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 80I

brief facts relating to the issue are that the assessee purchased and installed new plant and machinery in the preceding year but put to use the same for a period less than 180 days in that year. In I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 & C.O. 39/Kol/2019 M/s Birla Corporation Ltd view ... amounting to Rs.14,93,45,096/- in respect of new plant and machinery purchased and installed in the preceding year but put to use for a period of less than 180 days in that year. In view of the second proviso to section

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)

block a new aircraft purchased during the year. The assessee had claimed that this aircraft was purchased during the year and put to use while the ld. AO taking into consideration the certificate of airworthiness, issued by the Director General of Civil Aviation, concluded that the aircraft was put ... period from 18.10.2012 to 17.10.2015 and, therefore, the 2 India Flysafe Aviation Ltd. vs. DCIT ITA Nos.1582/Del/2019 AO concluded that the aircraft was put to use only after 18.10.2012 and that made the aircraft put to use for a period less than 180 days. Accordingly, the addition was made

M/S. Deepak Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 6(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 467/KOL/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234CSection 36(1)(va)Section 43(1)Section 43A

that the assessee had made some additions to fixed asset in the latter half of F.Y. 2012-13 and consequently the assets were put to use for less than 180 days. Accordingly, the assessee claimed depreciation @ 10% being 50% of normal rate of depreciation. During the year, the assessee claimed ... Section 32(1)(iia) effective AY: 2018-19 And 2019-20 M/s. Deepak Industries Ltd. w.e.f 01.04.2016 providing that where assets has been put to use for the purpose of business for a period less than 180 days in the previous year, the deduction shall be allowed in respect

Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 205/CHNY/2023[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1.आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.204/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & 2.आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.205/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2004-05) M/S. Southern Petrochemical Acit / Ito बनाम Industries Corporation Limited Corporate Circle-6(2) / 88, Spic House, Mount Road, Guindy, Corporate Ward-3(1) / Vs. Chennai-600 032. Chennai-600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4668-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan & Shri Saroj Kumar Parida (Advocates)-Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) & Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit)-Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16-10-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-01-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan & Shri Saroj KumarFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) &

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 194CSection 41(1)Section 43B

from the date on which the capital was borrowed for acquisition of the asset till the date on which such asset was first put to use, shall not be allowed as deduction. The equity shares being the final outcome of the interest free advance and the same being an asset

Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 204/CHNY/2023[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2024AY 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan & Shri Saroj KumarFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) &

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 194CSection 41(1)Section 43B

M/S. Deepak Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-6(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 466/KOL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Jan 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234CSection 36(1)(va)Section 43(1)Section 43A

M/S. Tata Elxsi Limited., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 927/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Kincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R

Section 10ASection 30Section 80ASection 80H

ITA Nos.927, 974 & 975/Bang/2023 Tata Elxsi Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE

M/S Autograph Cars (India), Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Income Tax Department, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2928/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआअसं.2928/मुं/2023 (िन.व. 2013-14) M/S. Autograph Cars (India) Private Limited, C/O. R.K.Khanna & Associates, 402, Regent Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan: Aafca-0420-J ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(1), Mumbai – 400 020 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Raja B. SinghFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha

Section 32Section 41(1)

claim of depreciation u/s. 32 of the Act stating that no activities were carried during the year as the assets were not actually put to use. The said findings of the CIT(A) are contrary to the pleadings and the fact on record. 2.2 The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee ... u/s.32 of the Act stating that the assessee was not carrying out any activity during the year and the assests were not actually put to use. From close examination of the documents on record we find that in assessment proceedings there is no discussion regarding disallowance of current year

Simbhaoli Power Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT Ghaziabad, New Delhi

ITA 4620/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

For Appellant: Shri Anshul Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Gupta, CIT- DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)Section 69C

accounts, date of purchase, bill no./amount, complete address of the party from whom purchases made. Also furnish details when the assets were put to use. 17. Inventory of opening and closing stock in quantity and amount. Whether excise duty payable has been shown in the value of stock

Aim Packaging (P) Ltd., Burdwan vs. CIT(A), Unit-3, Coimbatore., Delhi

In the result, ground taken by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 508/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 148

trade during the year. Based on these facts, he drew an inference that impugned assets on which depreciation has been claimed were not put to use during the year to claim depreciation for plant and machinery and furniture and fixture. A show cause notice was issued

Nanjappa Umashanker, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 799/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Prathik P., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69A

loan account, as long as the Revenue had not brought anything on record to suggest that the cash was utilized or put to use in any other manner, held that no disallowance u/s. 69A in respect of such cash deposit made during the period of demonetization could be sustained

Asst CIT (Ltu) 1, Mumbai vs. Grasim Industries Limited (As A Successor to Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1248/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Ms. A. Alankrutha, Sr. DR

Section 10BSection 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 37Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

expenses were to 80IA Unit) 9 Allowing additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) in the succeeding assessment year where the assets were put to use for less than 180 days in relevant previous year 10 Deletion of addition made on account of ESOP expenses

Grasim Industries Limited (As A Successor to Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1065/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Ms. A. Alankrutha, Sr. DR

Section 10BSection 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 37Section 40Section 43BSection 80I