← 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

M/S. Maheshwari Logistics Private Limited, Vapi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 377/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.377/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) Maheshwari Logistics Ltd. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Valsad, Room No.301, 3Rd Floor, Shed No.A2-3/2 Mll House, Vs. Opp. Upl, 1St Phase, Gidc, Income Tax Office, Palak Arcade, Pali Vapi, Valsad-396195 Hill, Santi Nagar, Tithal Road, Valsad- 396001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaecm 8332 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sakar Sharma, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By: Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

assessee has not claimed the depreciation in tax audit report (for income tax purposes) as the new assets so purchased were not put to use. However, for Companies Act purpose, the assessee has shown depreciation in the audited books of accounts. The Principle Commissioner of Income Tax has caught ... assessee has not claimed the depreciation in tax audit report (for income tax purposes) as the new assets so purchased were not put to use. However, for Companies Act purpose, the assessee has shown depreciation in the audited books of accounts, this difference between the depreciation schedule prepared

ADIT (It) 1(2), Mumbai vs. Calyon Bank, Mumbai

ITA 4259/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.9071/मुं/2010 (िन.व. 2006-07) आअसं.3103/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2007-08) आअसं.1503/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2008-09) आअसं.1504/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2009-10) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Calyon Bank), 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaccc-3872-B ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Asstt. Director Of Income-Tax (International Taxation)-1(2) Mumbai, 1St Floor, Scindia House, Ballard Pier, Mumbai 400 038 ......"ितवादी/Respondent आअसं.4259/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2007-08) आअसं.1483/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2008-09) आअसं.1868/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2009-10) The Asstt. Director Of Income-Tax (International Taxation)-1(2) Mumbai, 1St Floor, Scindia House, Ballard Pier, Mumbai 400 038. ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Calyon Bank), 11Th Floor, Hoechst House

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate gwithFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, Sr. AR &
Section 143(3)

depreciation to 15% on the ground that the assessee failed to prove that the assessee had acquired vehicles after 1stOctober, 1998 and where “put to use” before 01/04/1999. The Assessing Officer further observed that the assessee failed to prove that the vehicles acquired were commercial vehicles. The ld.Counsel ... aforesaid facts, the DRP upheld the findings of Assessing Officer and dismissed objection of assessee. He submitted that there is no question of “put to use” after having accepted that the vehicles were used for transportation of employees and for other banking requirements. 17.1 Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. Asst DIT (It) 1(2), Mumbai

ITA 3103/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.9071/मुं/2010 (िन.व. 2006-07) आअसं.3103/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2007-08) आअसं.1503/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2008-09) आअसं.1504/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2009-10) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Calyon Bank), 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaccc-3872-B ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Asstt. Director Of Income-Tax (International Taxation)-1(2) Mumbai, 1St Floor, Scindia House, Ballard Pier, Mumbai 400 038 ......"ितवादी/Respondent आअसं.4259/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2007-08) आअसं.1483/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2008-09) आअसं.1868/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2009-10) The Asstt. Director Of Income-Tax (International Taxation)-1(2) Mumbai, 1St Floor, Scindia House, Ballard Pier, Mumbai 400 038. ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Calyon Bank), 11Th Floor, Hoechst House

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate gwithFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, Sr. AR &
Section 143(3)

depreciation to 15% on the ground that the assessee failed to prove that the assessee had acquired vehicles after 1stOctober, 1998 and where “put to use” before 01/04/1999. The Assessing Officer further observed that the assessee failed to prove that the vehicles acquired were commercial vehicles. The ld.Counsel ... aforesaid facts, the DRP upheld the findings of Assessing Officer and dismissed objection of assessee. He submitted that there is no question of “put to use” after having accepted that the vehicles were used for transportation of employees and for other banking requirements. 17.1 Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative