“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

M/S. Uni Kohtech Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1466/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Uni Kohltech The Dcit Circle 18(1), Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi B-8, Basement Floor, Ansal Vs. Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi 110019 Pan Aaacw 7337 H (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Rajeshwar Painly, Adv. For Revenue : Ms. Meenakshi Dohre, Sr Dr

For Appellant: Shri Rajeshwar Painly, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi Dohre, Sr DR

recorded a finding that the assessee claimed depreciation on the first time, and the plant & machinery on which depreciation was claimed was never put to use. In our considered view, when the assessee is claiming depreciation consistently, which was allowed to Page 4 of 5 it during the immediately preceding

Shri Devkripa Textile Mills (P) Ltd., Bhilwara vs. ACIT, Bhilwara Circle, Bhilwara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 467/JODH/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur05 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

were used for less than 180 days during the year under consideration. Disallowance so made and sustained for the depreciation on the assessee put to use in earlier years. Disallowance so made and sustained may kindly be deleted. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... year. Accordingly, he restricted the salary expenses to Rs.2,24,000/- and disallowed balance amount of Rs.2,86,000/-. Since the assets were put to use for less than 180 days only, the AO disallowed 50% of depreciation claimed by the assessee. The AO also disallowed a sum of Rs.2

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Bhilai vs. Mesers Abis Poultry Private Limited, Rajnandgaon

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 234/RPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.233 & 234/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010 & 2011-2012) Acit-2(1), Bhilai Vs M/S Abis Poultry Private Limited, Baldeo Bag, Rajnandgaon Pan No. :Aaeca 87411 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Amit M. Jain & Gagan Tiwari, Advs. &For Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 153CSection 68

allowable on block of assets and not on individual asset. If once single assets out of entire block has been discarded or not put to use by the assessee for its business! on the ground alone partial depreciation can not be disallowed. 4.15 In the case of Hughes Escorts Communications

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Bhilai vs. Mesers Abis Poultry Private Limited, Rajnandgaon

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 233/RPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Amit M. Jain & Gagan Tiwari, Advs. &For Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 153CSection 68

Udaipur Sahakari Uphokta Thok Bhandar Ltd., Udaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Udaipur

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

ITA 441/JODH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur22 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad441/Jodh/2018 (Assessment Year- 2014-15) Udaipur Sahakari Upbhokta Vs The Acit Thok Bhandar Ltd. Circle-2 Ist Floor, Shastri Circle, Uddaipur Udaipur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaau 0159 K

Section 143(2)Section 36(1)(iii)

beginning from the date on which the capital was borrowed for acquisition of the assets till the date on which asset was first put to use shall not be allowed as deduction.’’ Thus, as per the above proviso to section 36(1)(iii), the interest paid in respect of capital

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 9, Delhi vs. Umang Dairies Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4539/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR

this account. The AO also noted that the assessee had claimed depreciation of Rs.2,07,165/- on account milk analyzers which were not put to use during the year under consideration. 4. Upon assessee’s appeal, ld. CIT (A) elaborately discussed the issue and referring to CIT (A)’s order

Harmony Plastics Pvt.Ltd., Udaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Udaiur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 180/JODH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad180/Jodh/2019 (Assessment Year- 2015-16) M/S. Harmony Plastics Pvt Ltd. V The Acit S F-335-339, Bhamashah Industrial Circle-1 Area, Kaladwas, Udaipur Uddaipur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabch 5399 D

Section 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 32(2)(iia)

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR in confirming disallowance of allowance of balance 50% additional depreciation on new plant & Machinery purchased and put to use during the IInd Half of A.Y. 2014-15 on the alleged ground that in terms of clause (iia) of Section 32(1), addl. Depreciation is available ... year in which machinery is new and first put to use and not for any succeeding year. Further, carry forward of additional dep. Is substituted by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01-04- 2016 and is applicable from A.Y. 2016-17 onwards without considering the fact that position is clarified

V Guard Industries Limited, Vennala vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 63/COCH/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Mar 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Sandeep Gosainv-Guard Industries Ltd. Principal Cit-1, 42/962, Vennala High School C R Building, I S Press Road, Vs. Road, Vennala, Kochi 682018 Ernakulam 682028 [Pan: Aaacv5492Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Anil D. Nair, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Prashant V.K., Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.03.2023 O R D E R Per: Bench This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Challenging The Revision Of It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) Dated 28/12/2018 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17 By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Kochi (‘Pr. Cit’ For Short) Vide Order U/S. 263 Dated 22/03/2021. 2. The Appeal, Filed On 08/03/2022, Though Delayed By 256 Days, Was Admitted In View Of The Blanket Condonation By The Apex Court In Suo Motu Wp(C) No.3/2020, Dated 10/01/2022, Excluding The Period From 15/3/2020 To 28/02/2022 In Reckoning The Delay In Computing Limitation Under Law & The Hearing Accordingly Proceeded With. The Assessee Is A Company Manufacturing Electrical Cables, Pumps, Solar Water Heaters, Etc. & Trading In Electrical & Electronic Goods. Revision Of It’S Impugned Assessment Is On Several Issues On Which The Revisionary Authority Found An Absence Or Lack Of Enquiry By The Assessing Officer

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prashant V.K., CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

Form No.3CD/Clause No.18 - regarding depreciation - refer Note 7 & 8: This note informs that company has considered additional depreciation on certain assets put to use for less than 180 days during the earlier AY 2015-16, which is prima-facie not permissible. AO has omitted to notice this aspect ... case.’ With reference to clause 18 of Form 3CD, the assessee-company had claimed additional depreciation for AY 2015-16 on assets put to use for less than 180 days. The assessee’s claims to have furnished all the relevant details in assessment, taking us through the same

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Ptc India Financial Services Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1268/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T Kipgen, CIT(DR)

Section 143(1)Section 14A

making the disallowance of depreciation as the CIT(A) has allowed the relief on the ground that the assets have been put to use for the purpose of assessee’s business, which was not the ground taken by the AO for making the disallowance. 2. In the facts and circumstances ... submitted by the Assessee. Thus, CIT(A) has given a categorical finding that the assets were owned by the assessee and were put to use for the purposes of its business during the year. Hence, there is no need to interfere with the detailed findings of the CIT(A). Hence

DCIT, Circle-19(2), New Delhi vs. Pawan Hans Ltd., Noida

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7417/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. K. K. Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 37(1)

Rs.1.51 Cr. has been actually written off by the assessee during the year. These stores are declared unusable and can’t be put to use in commercial flying keeping in view of the strict compliance of the safety norms issued by the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA). The write

Addl.CIT, Special Range- 7, New Delhi vs. Pawan Hans Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6441/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. K. K. Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 37(1)

Srf Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl CIT, New Delhi

In the result, this ground of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 774/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Ussrf Limited Vs. Acit Unitech Crest, Greenwood Range – 9, City Block – C, Sector – 45, Ltu, New Delhi Gurgaon – 122 003 Pan No. Aaacs 0206 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep Dinodia, Shri R. K. Kapoor C.A. Shri Ravi Kumar Revenue By Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit (Dr) Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10/01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Dated 27.09.2016 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-44, New Delhi [For Short, Cit(A)] Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [For Short, 'The Act'] For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under:-

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 92C

erred in not entertaining and adjudicating the following grounds: (i) 50% additional depreciation of Rs.11,05,29,041/-on assets put to use for less than 180 days in the immediately preceding assessment year. (ii) Denial of benefit of indexation in calculating long term capital gain on sale of mutual ... year under consideration assessee had not claimed 50% additional depreciation of 11,05,29,041/- u/s 32(1)(iia) inadvertently on the assets put to use for less than 180 days in the immediately preceding assessment year while filing the return of income. The claim for additional depreciation was made

Shri Rajkot District Cooperative Bank Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Pr. Commr. of Income Tax-1, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 123/RJT/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot15 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2011-12 Shri Rajkot District Cooperative Vs. Pr.Cit, Rajkot-1 Bank Ltd. Rajkot. ‘Jilla Bank Bhavan’, Kasturba Road Opp: Chaudhari High School Rajkot. Pan : Aaaar 0564 K 0 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assesseeby : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17/11/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/02/2023

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, ld.CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36

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 ... with the return of income61 for the assessment year 23 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Jaipur vs. M/S Hanuman Tube Well Co., Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as assessee are dismissed

ITA 839/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Jain, Adv &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT-DR fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 145(3)Section 2(14)Section 45

issue of depreciation of “Matasukh project’s plant and machinery wherefrom no receipts were disclosed or any details of plant and machinery put to use where provided? ITA No. 866/JP/2019 - Assessee “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A), Kota has grossly erred

National Textile Corporation Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2043/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 2043/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 National Textile Corporation Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, Core-4, Scope Complex-7, Lodhi Special Range-6, Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn2847D Ita No. 1969/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Addl. Cit, Vs National Textile Corporation Ltd., Special Range-6, Core-4, Scope Complex-7, Lodhi New Delhi Road, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn2847D

For Appellant: Sh. Manoj Kumar Anand, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 32(1)

machinery installed during the year from the details furnished, the AO found that the assessee claimed depreciation @20% on though the machinery was put to use for less than 180 days and hence, depreciation as well as additional depreciation was allowed @ 50% of the allowable amount in accordance with section

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. National Textile Corporation Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 1969/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Manoj Kumar Anand, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 32(1)

Cae Simulation Training Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-5(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7317/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)

assessee charged depreciation of Rs. 42,943/- at the rate of 30% (half of the rate of 60% as the assets were put to use for less than 180 days) on the book value of Rs.1 43,145/- of Cisco IP Phone in the block of plant and machinery

The ACIT, Kochi vs. M/S.Cochin Shipyard Ltd, Kochi

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 659/COCH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. ARFor Respondent: S/Shri Rajasekharan & K. Gopi, CAs

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40

assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) by making certain disallowances. Later, the AO noticed that the assessee has claimed depreciation on plant & machinery put to use in previous year 2007-08 for an amount of Rs.53,77,981 for AY 2009-10 u/s. 32(1)(iia). The assessee submitted that ... proviso to section 32(1)(ii), the depreciation allowance is restricted to 50% where the assets have been put to use for a period of less than 180 days in the year of acquisition. The assessee further submitted that there is no restriction for the balance amount to be claimed

The ACIT, Kochi vs. M/S.Cochin Shipyard Ltd, Kochi

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 658/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. ARFor Respondent: S/Shri Rajasekharan & K. Gopi, CAs

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40

The ACIT, Kochi vs. M/S.Cochin Shipyard Ltd, Kochi

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 657/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. ARFor Respondent: S/Shri Rajasekharan & K. Gopi, CAs

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40