← 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

Dy CIT 10 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Navin Flourine International Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6814/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 6814/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dcit-10(3)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Navin Flourine Room No. 217/212, 1St International Ltd. Vs. 2Nd Floor, Suntech Centre, Near Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Churchgate, Mumbai- Garware Plastics, 37/40, 400020. Subhash Road, Vile Parle (E)], Mumbai-400057. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcp0464B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Ms. Aastha Shah/Aamod Prabhudesai सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 17, Mumbai Dated 20.08.2019 For Ay. 2009-10. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Given Relief To The Assessee Against The Action Of The Ao Who Passed The Re-Assessment Order Dated 26.03.2015 U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). According To The Ld. Ar, The Ao Passed The Re-Assessment Order Dated 26.03.2015 Pursuant To The Order Of The Ld. Cit-07, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act Dated 24.01.2014 Wherein The Ld. Cit Found Fault With The Action Of The Ao In Respect Of Original Assessment Framed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 29.12.2011 Wherein The Ao A.Y. 2009-10 M/S. Navin Flourine International Ltd. Assessed The Total Income Of Assessee At Rs.71,09,93,779/-. The Ld Cit U/S 263 Of The Act Found Fault With The Original Assessment On The Following Four (4) Issues: -

For Appellant: Ms. Aastha Shah/Aamod PrabhudesaiFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 154Section 263

scientific research related to the assessee's business transferred to the work-in- progress account till the asset was ready to be put to use, and once the asset is ready to be put to use, the said asset is transferred to the fixed asset account. During the current assessment

Pr. CIT Circle-2, Mumbai vs. Bharat Prtroleum Corporation Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 1601/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1601/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Bharat Petroleum बिधम/ Pcit, Circle-2 Corporation Ltd. Room No.344, Aayakar Vs. Taxation Section, Bhavan, M. K. Road, 4Th Floor, Bharat Bhavan 1, Mumbai-400020. 4 & 6 Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400001. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb2902M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Jehangir D. Mistry Revenue By: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-02 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”], Mumbai Dated 21.02.2020 For Assessment Year [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ay”] 2016-17 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”].

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D. MistryFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)
Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 32A

Section 32AC of the Act. This is because what enters the computation of the figure of additions are those assets that have been put to use. This figure in the original return was Rs 4577.07 crores. With the additional claim of Rs 319.05 crores being loss on account of currency ... However, the claim of deduction under section 32AC of the Act are available on installed assets as well that have not been put to use and remain in capital work in progress. It is submitted that the claim under 32AC of the Act as per the original return