“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

Tal Manufacturing Solutions Ltd., Nagpur vs. Asst CIT 2 (3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 90/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)

said compensation was received in earlier years towards cost expected to be incurred for modification of fixed assets before they can be put to use. Such cost to be incurred were in the nature of validation support services, warranty, restating etc. The said compensation was credited to ‘Compensation received from

Tal Manufacturing Solutions Ltd., Nagpur vs. Asst CIT 2 (3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 89/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Section 143(3)

M/S. Mobily Infotech India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 313/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: FixedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sankarganesh K. Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

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. Explanation. – Recurring subscriptions paid periodically by shareholders, or subscribers in Mutual Benefit Societies which fulfill such conditions

M/S. Hical Infra Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Range- 1, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 313/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sankarganesh K. Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

DCIT Cen Cir 1(2), Mumbai vs. Gitanjali Exports Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 305/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Section 36(1)(iii)Section 92B

interest on borrowings made for acquisition of assets for extension of existing business is required to be capitalized till the asset is first put to use. In this case, assessee had made total advance payment of Rs. 1,53,25,000/-for acquisition of two new premises out of payment

Tata Housing Development Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- 8(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee ITA

ITA 3491/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Tata Housing Vs. Dcit – 8(3)(1) Development Company Room No. 615, Ltd.,E Block, Voltas Aayakar Bhavan, Compound, Tb Kadam Mk Marg, Marg, Chinchpokli, Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400033. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaact0191Q Appellant .. Respondent Dcit – 8(3)(1) Vs. M/S. Tata Housing Room No. 615, Aayakar Development Company Bhavan, Ltd.,E Block, Voltas Mk Marg, Compound, Tb Kadam Mumbai – 400020. Marg, Chinchpokli, Mumbai – 400033. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaact0191Q Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Madhur Agarwal.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Ajay Kumar. CIT DR

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

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". ITA No. 3491 & 3533/Mum/2019 Tata Housing Development Co. Ltd, Mumbai Explanation - Recurring subscriptions paid periodically by shareholders ... occasion to deal with an issue where funds were borrowed for the purpose of buying new plant and machinery, such machinery was not put to use, the expenditure on payment of interest on borrowing is allowable U/s. 36(1) (li) i.e. the borrowings should be for the purpose of business

M/S. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT Cur 7(1)

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 769/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanpiramal Enterprises Ltd Vs. Acit, Circle – 7(1) (Formerly Known As Aayakar Bhavan Piramal Healthcare Ltd) Mumbai – 400020. (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal Ind) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400013. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn4538P Appellant .. Respondent Dcit, Circle – 7(1) Vs. Piramal Enterprises Ltd Aayakar Bhyavan (Formerly Known As Mumbai – 400 020. Piramal Healthcare Ltd) (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal Ind) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn4538P Assessee By : Mr.Ronak Doshi & Ms.Manshi Padhiyar.Ar Revenue By : Mr.S.N.Kabra.Dr

For Appellant: Mr.Ronak Doshi &For Respondent: Mr.S.N.Kabra.DR

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 32Section 35Section 80

1954/Mum/2008 M/s Nicholas Piramal India Ltd, Mumbai. for acquisition of the asset till the date on which such asset was first put to use , shall not be allowed as deduction. We find that this proviso in any case would not be applicable for the year under consideration as the same

M/S Actgen Pharma Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 12 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 7249/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

Section 143(3)Section 250

accommodation entry to siphon of black money. Further, in the absence of details as to when the said stainless steel pipes / tubes were put to use by the assessee, the Assessing Officer vide order passed under section 143(3) of the Act disallowed the claim of depreciation. 7. In appeal

M/S Actgen Pharma Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 12 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 7248/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

Section 143(3)Section 250

ITO 6(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Indo Energy International Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 5805/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5805/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Indo Energy Ito – 6(3)(1), International Pvt. R. No. 506, 5Th Floor, Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. बिधम/ 1St Floor, J. V. House, Road, Mumbai-400051 Vs. 2Nd Floor, Dr. D. S. Babrekar Marg, Mumbai-400 028 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aabci1739A (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. P. Rastogi, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Jitendra Jain, Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 14.06.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 24.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Impugned Order Dated 05.07.2018, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-12

For Appellant: Shri R. P. Rastogi, LdFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Jain, Ld

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

developing and construction of Jetty in the earlier years which was capitalized in its books of account and the Jetty was put to use during the AY 2010-11. The assessee had capitalized the cost for Jetty under the block, ‘Intangible Assets’ and claimed depreciation @ 25% which was accepted

Asian Electronics Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed and revenue is allowed

ITA 4804/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt Shailaja Rai

Section 115Section 115JSection 14A

fittings. Further the AO is also justified in disallowing depreciation in regard to Sr.No.1 & 2 as there was discrepancies in date of put to use. To summarize, the AO is directed to consider dyes and moulds as part of Plant & Machinery and accordingly allow depreciation / additional depreciation ... depreciation is confirmed, for the reason that assets were claimed 10 ITA NOs. 4770 & 4804/MUM/2012 (A.Y: 2009-10) M/s. Asian Electronics Limited put to use before date of acquisition and in certain cases on the date of purchase itself which was not possible. 9.3. iii In the result, addition made

DCIT 3(1), Mumbai vs. Asian Electronics Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed and revenue is allowed

ITA 4770/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt Shailaja Rai

Section 115Section 115JSection 14A

DCIT Cent, Cir-2(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Vinati Organics Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed and the assessee appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1799/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Sidhharth Kothari, ARFor Respondent: Mr. S.N. Kabra, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 195Section 32Section 4

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowed additional deprecation u/s 32 on the assets which were put to use for less than 180 days in the previous year. 2. At the time of hearing, the Ld.DR submitted that the Revenue has raised ... Vinati Organics Ltd. ITA Nos. 1859 & 1799/Mum/2021 50% of the 20% would be allowable, if the new plant and machinery so acquired is put to use for less than 180 days in a financial year. However, if nowhere restricts that the balance 10% would not be allowed to be claimed

Sri Kamanahalli Pilla Reddy Nagesh, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 4(3)(5), Bangalore

Accordingly, this ground of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1396/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Kamanahalli Pilla Reddy Nagesh, Kamanahalli Village, Kagur The Income Tax Post, Officer, Sarjapura Road, Ward – 4 [3] [5], Anekal Taluk, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 562 125. Pan: Adfpn8365H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Guruswamy, Itp : Shri V.S. Chakrapani, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 28.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-9, Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant, Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Cit[A] Is Not Justified In Upholding The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143[3] Of The Act Despite The Fact That No Valid Notice U/S.143[2] Of The Act Was Served

For Appellant: Shri Guruswamy, ITP

Section 10(1)Section 143Section 2(14)Section 234Section 292BSection 54B

definition of capital asset under section 2(14) of the Act in view of the following facts :- (a) The said land was put to use as agricultural land by the assessee right up to the date of sale and the assessee has also been declaring the agricultural income earned therefrom ... find that the facts of the case clearly point out that the land in question continued to be agricultural land and was put to use as such, prior to sale to Indian Oil Corporation, despite the permission obtained from the concerned authorities, we accept the contention of the assessee

M/S Axa Group Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 181/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92C

depreciation on the software expenses so capitalized and allow the depreciation based on the number of days the asset is being put to use The assessee is in appeal aggrieved by the order of the CIT(Appeals). Page 13 of 17 14. The ld AR submitted that this issue

M/S. Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle -1, Mangaluru

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 948/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R

Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

demonstration Seminar on construction and re- 30 on housing cycling of demolition wasted was and organized; publishing useful data Bio-Digester was put to use at the 35- and literature Assessee’s premises and also 36 on housing conducted Bio-Digester and allied implementation and awareness activities program; 37- Field

M/S. Udupi Nirmithi Kedra, Udupi vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle - 1, Mangaluru

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 947/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R

Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Mangaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions), Circle-1, Mangaluru

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2089/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R

Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Mangaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Mangaluru

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2088/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R

Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Mangaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Mangaluru

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2087/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R

Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)