← 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

Ipca Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 8084/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR
Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

apply. vi. With respect to the claim of additional depreciation of ₹1,23,37,420/- on account of assets put to use in second half of A.Y. 2007-08, relying on the decision of the co-ordinate bench in Cosmo Films Ltd. vs. DCIT in Ipca Laboratories ... depreciation according to Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act in the second half of the immediately preceding year. As the assessee has put to use those assets for less than 180 days in the previous financial year, assessee is entitled to only 50% of the additional depreciation. The same

ACIT Cen Cir 13, Mumbai vs. Ipca Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 7511/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR
Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

apply. vi. With respect to the claim of additional depreciation of ₹1,23,37,420/- on account of assets put to use in second half of A.Y. 2007-08, relying on the decision of the co-ordinate bench in Cosmo Films Ltd. vs. DCIT in Ipca Laboratories ... depreciation according to Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act in the second half of the immediately preceding year. As the assessee has put to use those assets for less than 180 days in the previous financial year, assessee is entitled to only 50% of the additional depreciation. The same

DCIT, Cir-6(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Diageo India Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 2858/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Diageo India P. Ltd. Dcit 4Th Floor, Nicholas Piramal Tower Rg 6(2)(2) Peninsula Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Mk Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci 3378 L Diageo India P. Ltd. Dcit 4Th Floor, Nicholas Piramal Tower Rg 6(2)(2) Peninsula Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Mk Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 253Section 92BSection 92C

progress into fixed assets, the learned assessing officer has every right to examine the actual cost of the asset, when it is put to use an the use for business purpose for allowability of the depreciation. Therefore, at present, the findings of the learned assessing officer are premature. Accordingly, ground

Diageo India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 6(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1002/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Diageo India P. Ltd. Dcit 4Th Floor, Nicholas Piramal Tower Rg 6(2)(2) Peninsula Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Mk Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci 3378 L Diageo India P. Ltd. Dcit 4Th Floor, Nicholas Piramal Tower Rg 6(2)(2) Peninsula Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Mk Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 253Section 92BSection 92C

progress into fixed assets, the learned assessing officer has every right to examine the actual cost of the asset, when it is put to use an the use for business purpose for allowability of the depreciation. Therefore, at present, the findings of the learned assessing officer are premature. Accordingly, ground

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-7(1), Mumbai vs. Dr D.Y. Patil Aducation Academy, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1350/MUM/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2022AY 2013-2014

Bench: This Tribunal Falls Within The Said Pandemic Period. Accordingly, After Considering The Relaxation Of Period Provided By The Hon’Ble Supreme Court, We Find That There Is No Delay In Filing Of Appeal Before Us. Accordingly, The Appeal Is Admitted & Taken Up For Adjudication.

Section 12ASection 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 80G

income being applied for charitable or religious purposes: Having regard to s.11(1)(a) when the income of the trust is used or put to use to meet the charitable or religious purposes it is applied for charitable purpose and the said application of the income for charitable or religious

ACIT-2(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Icici Bank Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed while for the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 3864/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalicici Bank Limited Vs. The Acit, Circle 2(3)(2) Icici Bank Towers Aayakar Bhavan, 5Th Bandra Kurla Complex Floor, Room No. 552/556 Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaaci1195H Appellant .. Respondent The Acit, Circle 2(3)(2) Vs. Icici Bank Limited Aayakar Bhavan, 5Th Icici Bank Towers Floor, Room No. 552 Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai – 400 020 Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaaci1195H Respondent .. Appellant

For Appellant: Aarti VisanjiFor Respondent: R.A. Dhyani &
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 43D

actually formed the assets of the appellant in the shape of IPDI, still there cannot be any dispute that such IPDIs have been put to use for its business purposes and therefore the interest paid on such IPDIs would even be allowable as per the proviso to section

Icici Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Asst. CIT Circle 2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed while for the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 3215/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalicici Bank Limited Vs. The Acit, Circle 2(3)(2) Icici Bank Towers Aayakar Bhavan, 5Th Bandra Kurla Complex Floor, Room No. 552/556 Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaaci1195H Appellant .. Respondent The Acit, Circle 2(3)(2) Vs. Icici Bank Limited Aayakar Bhavan, 5Th Icici Bank Towers Floor, Room No. 552 Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai – 400 020 Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaaci1195H Respondent .. Appellant

For Appellant: Aarti VisanjiFor Respondent: R.A. Dhyani &
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 43D

actually formed the assets of the appellant in the shape of IPDI, still there cannot be any dispute that such IPDIs have been put to use for its business purposes and therefore the interest paid on such IPDIs would even be allowable as per the proviso to section

Dy CIT Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Sheth Creators P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2012/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), Upper Basement, Site Office, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Vasant Oasis, Cts No. 345A/1 To Vs. Nariman Point, 3, 345A 5, Makwana Road, Mumbai-400021. Andheri East, Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), M/S Sheth Creators Private Limited, Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, 1203 & 1204 Hallmark Business Air India Building, Vs. Plaza, 12Th Floor, Sant Dyaneshwar Nariman Point, Marg, Kala-Nagar, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), 101-A & 1202, 1St & 12Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Air India Building, Hallamark Business Plaza, Near Vs. Nariman Point, Gurunanak Hospital, Sant Mumbai-400021. Dyaneshwar Marg, Kalanagar

dispute as far as claim of ownership vis-à-vis the depreciation. the depreciation. The only dispute is whether the helicopter was put to use wholly The only dispute is whether the helicopter was put to use wholly The only dispute is whether the helicopter was put to use wholly

Sheth Creators P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1858/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), Upper Basement, Site Office, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Vasant Oasis, Cts No. 345A/1 To Vs. Nariman Point, 3, 345A 5, Makwana Road, Mumbai-400021. Andheri East, Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), M/S Sheth Creators Private Limited, Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, 1203 & 1204 Hallmark Business Air India Building, Vs. Plaza, 12Th Floor, Sant Dyaneshwar Nariman Point, Marg, Kala-Nagar, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), 101-A & 1202, 1St & 12Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Air India Building, Hallamark Business Plaza, Near Vs. Nariman Point, Gurunanak Hospital, Sant Mumbai-400021. Dyaneshwar Marg, Kalanagar

dispute as far as claim of ownership vis-à-vis the depreciation. the depreciation. The only dispute is whether the helicopter was put to use wholly The only dispute is whether the helicopter was put to use wholly The only dispute is whether the helicopter was put to use wholly

Sheth Creators Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Cent. Cir-4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1857/MUM/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), Upper Basement, Site Office, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Vasant Oasis, Cts No. 345A/1 To Vs. Nariman Point, 3, 345A 5, Makwana Road, Mumbai-400021. Andheri East, Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), M/S Sheth Creators Private Limited, Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, 1203 & 1204 Hallmark Business Air India Building, Vs. Plaza, 12Th Floor, Sant Dyaneshwar Nariman Point, Marg, Kala-Nagar, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), 101-A & 1202, 1St & 12Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Air India Building, Hallamark Business Plaza, Near Vs. Nariman Point, Gurunanak Hospital, Sant Mumbai-400021. Dyaneshwar Marg, Kalanagar

dispute as far as claim of ownership vis-à-vis the depreciation. the depreciation. The only dispute is whether the helicopter was put to use wholly The only dispute is whether the helicopter was put to use wholly The only dispute is whether the helicopter was put to use wholly

Sheth Creators Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3696/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), Upper Basement, Site Office, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Vasant Oasis, Cts No. 345A/1 To Vs. Nariman Point, 3, 345A 5, Makwana Road, Mumbai-400021. Andheri East, Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), M/S Sheth Creators Private Limited, Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, 1203 & 1204 Hallmark Business Air India Building, Vs. Plaza, 12Th Floor, Sant Dyaneshwar Nariman Point, Marg, Kala-Nagar, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), 101-A & 1202, 1St & 12Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Air India Building, Hallamark Business Plaza, Near Vs. Nariman Point, Gurunanak Hospital, Sant Mumbai-400021. Dyaneshwar Marg, Kalanagar

dispute as far as claim of ownership vis-à-vis the depreciation. the depreciation. The only dispute is whether the helicopter was put to use wholly The only dispute is whether the helicopter was put to use wholly The only dispute is whether the helicopter was put to use wholly

Sheth Creators Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2620/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), Upper Basement, Site Office, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Vasant Oasis, Cts No. 345A/1 To Vs. Nariman Point, 3, 345A 5, Makwana Road, Mumbai-400021. Andheri East, Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), M/S Sheth Creators Private Limited, Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, 1203 & 1204 Hallmark Business Air India Building, Vs. Plaza, 12Th Floor, Sant Dyaneshwar Nariman Point, Marg, Kala-Nagar, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), 101-A & 1202, 1St & 12Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Air India Building, Hallamark Business Plaza, Near Vs. Nariman Point, Gurunanak Hospital, Sant Mumbai-400021. Dyaneshwar Marg, Kalanagar

dispute as far as claim of ownership vis-à-vis the depreciation. the depreciation. The only dispute is whether the helicopter was put to use wholly The only dispute is whether the helicopter was put to use wholly The only dispute is whether the helicopter was put to use wholly

Smt. Karishma Sharma, Bengaluru vs. Income-Tax Officer, International Taxation, Ward-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 99/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kit(It)A No.99/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 Ms.Karishma Sharma The Income Tax Officer, Kailash Building No.21 International Taxation V. Ward 2(1), Bangalore. Kodichikkanahalli Main Road Kaveri Nagar, Bommanahalli Bangalore – 560 068. Pan : Balps6030E. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Ravi Shankar, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Pronouncement : 12.08.2022 Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2022 O R D E R This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Cit(A)’S Order Dated 29.11.2021. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-2018. 2. The Solitary Issue Raised Is Whether Cash Deposit Of Rs.14.41 Lakh Can Be Considered As Unexplained?

For Appellant: Sri.Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 143(3)Section 69A

argument of the assessee is that the revenue has not brought anything on record to suggest that the cash was utilised or put to use in any other manner. It is further stated that the assessee was not present in India to spend the money and same was lying with ... Revenue has not brought anything on record to suggest that the cash which was received for the sale of flat was utilized or put to use in any other manner. Further, the Revenue has not been able to bring on record that the assessee being an NRI, has any other

ACIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. L & T Ltd ( Datar Switch Gear Ltd Merged ), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3806/MUM/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2022AY 2004-05
Section 143(3)

ground of the revenue is that the Learned CIT(A) should not have allowed the claim of depreciation, since the assets were not put to use. This is the only effective ground that requires to be adjudicated. 16. The Ld D.R. submitted that the 14,206 units have not been ... put to use by the assessee, as the MSEB has refused to accept them. He further submitted that the assessee has not furnished the details of assets also. Accordingly, the Ld D.R submitted that the assessee is not entitled to claim depreciation on the cost of 14,206 units

M/S. Bosch Limited, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 475/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32ASection 35

machinery which are in capital work-in- progress become 'new assets installed' as and when such plant and machinery are installed and put to use which might happen in subsequent year/s. Hence, we submit that the deduction u/s 32AC is applicable on all the assets which are installed during

Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 655/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Asian Paints Ltd., V. Addl. Cit – Ltu – 2 6A, Shantinagar 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre Santacruz (East) Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400005 Mumbai – 400055 Pan: Aaaca3622K (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Cit – Ltu – 2 V. M/S. Asian Paints Ltd., Centre-1, 29Th Floor 6A, Shantinagar World Trade Centre Santacruz (East) Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400005 Mumbai – 400055 Pan: Aaaca3622K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Das
Section 115OSection 14A

additional depreciation on any Machinery or plant , acquired after 31st of March 2005. As per the proviso to Section, if the assessee has put to use it for less than 1 80 days in a previous year, the deduction in respect of depreciation 23 ITA NO. 655 & 749/MUM/2017 ... installed new plant and machinery in the preceding assessment year, which is eligible for additional depreciation @20%. However, since the new assets were put to use for less than 180 days in the preceding assessment year, the claim of additional depreciation allowable at 20% was restricted to half

Island Star Mall Developers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC, Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2163/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Island Star Mall Developers Commissioner Of Income-Tax Private Limited (Appeals), Market City Resources Pvt. Ltd. Nfac, Delhi Ground Floor, R.R. Hosiery Bldg, Circle 6(1)(2), 5 Th Floor, R. Vs. Shree Laxmi Woollen Mills No. 506, Aaykar Bhavan, Estate, Mumbai Mumbai-400 011 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No.Aabci4988F Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Sanjay V. Deshmukh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.07.2022

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Sanjay V. Deshmukh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 246ASection 249(2)(c)Section 250

owner by title and actual possession of the construction of the plot. All the costs are capitalized and the asset was put to use during the year of transferring it to fixed assets account from capital work in progress but Assessee did not claim any depreciation on the same. Therefore

DCIT 26(1), Mumbai vs. Anuya Jayant Mhaiskar, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1517/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit -26(1) V. Anuya Jayant Mhaiskar Room No. 623, 6Th Floor 410 Boomerang, Chandivali Farm Kautilya Bhavan Chandivali Village, Andheri (E) Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai -400072 Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Ajdpm3145L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Kothari Department By : Shri Mehul Jain

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth KothariFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 143(2)

seen that AO has rejected the explanation questioning the rationale for withdrawing and not spending and thereby assuming that cash would have been put to use but not accounted for. But this is only a surmise, a presumption with nothing on record of the AO to support the said conjecture

M/S Te Connectivity India Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Circle-1, Bengaluru

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

ITA 2680/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Sumeet Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.S. Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 92

claiming depreciation were duly satisfied in the case of the Appellant i.e., the fixed assets were owned by the Appellant and were put to use for the purpose of business during the year under consideration. 13. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AO/learned

India Medtronic Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10 (1)91), Mumbai

In the result, ground No.54 of the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7935/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 7935/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2015-16) India Medtronic Private Limited, 1241, Solitaire Corporate Park, Bldg.No.12, 4Th Floor, Andheri-Ghatkopar Link Road, Andheri(E), Mumbai – 400 093 Pan:Aaaci-4227-Q ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-10(1)(1), Room No.209, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Rajan R. Vora, C.A With Shri Nikhil Tiwari ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Yogesh Kamath, Cit-Dr With S/Shri Satya Pinisetty/R.A.Dhyani सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 22/04/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 17/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Assessment Order Dated 25/10/2019 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’].

For Appellant: Shri Rajan R. Vora, C.A with Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kamath, CIT-DR with S/Shri Satya Pinisetty/R.A.Dhyani
Section 143(3)

assessee’s claim of depreciation of building Rs.58,298/- has been disallowed by Assessing Officer for the reason that the building was not put to use during the period under assessment. The stand of the assessee is that building in question forms part of the block of assets and continue