“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

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 2086/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

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 Kendra, Udupi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions) Circle-1, Mangalore

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

ITA 1962/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)

M/S. Citrix R & D India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2428/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Sumeet Khurana, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Rs.3.97 crore (refer page No. 52, fixed assets schedule 9) and is not very significant considering the turnover of Rs.817 crore and assets put to use of Rs.101 crore of the company. Hence this plea was rejected. Ld DRP also noted that the assessee has failed to establish that such

M/S. Himalaya Wellness Company (Formerly Known As the Himalaya Drug Company), Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 259/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.259/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 M/S.Himalaya Wellness Company The Deputy Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As The Himalaya Income-Tax, Circle 6(1)(1) V. Bengaluru. Drug Company), Makali, Tumkur Road Bengaluru – 562 162. Pan : Aadft3025B. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri.Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, CIT -DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 2(11)Section 92C

machinery. 6.1 The DRP confirmed the AOs finding that the assets on which higher depreciation is clamed are not proved to be put to use in production process accordingly and fail the functional test. 6.2 We have considered rival contentions and perused the material on record. Similar issue was considered ... refrigerator, camera, telephone, pedestal fan etc., which should fall under the category of "Plant & Machinery", even if the purpose for which they are put to use are not considered. In respect of remaining items, the contention of the assessee is that these items are used in the factory/lab

M/S. Iryd Automatrix Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3(1)(4), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 314/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Iryd Automatrix Pvt. Ltd., Ito, Vs. No.13/1, 4Th Floor, Ward – 3(1)(4), Sukruthi Apartment, Bengaluru. Subbaramachetty Road, Bengaluru – 560 004. Pan : Aadci 9051 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Hemant Pai, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 14.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.06.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Hemant Pai, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Dept

Section 144Section 68

examined. As per the order sheet and the discussions with the director, it was asked to furnish the details when the vehicles were put to use, the assessee failed to provide any evidence in this regard. Hence, genuineness of the claim of depreciation on vehicles could not be ascertained ... Disallowance of Wrongly claimed depreciation: The assessee had asked to provide the proof with respect to the details substantiating that the vehicles were 'put to use' during the year under consideration. The assessee submitted that the depreciation claimed is on leased vehicles and has submitted the booking confirmations received

M/S Applied Materials India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 3403/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 143(3)Section 92(1)Section 92ASection 92B(1)Section 92C

erred in computing excess income-tax depreciation on such computer peripherals to be disallowed by considering the relevant assets as having been put to use for more than 180 days during the relevant previous year as against less than 180 days.” 44. It is submitted that during the relevant year ... also submitted, without prejudice, that the AO has erroneously computed the depreciation by treating all the assets as having been put to use for more than 180 days and that the disallowance if at all has to be computed considering the fact that the assets amounting

The Dy.Citi -Cir 3(3) (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Park Air Systems Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2362/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ashish K. Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 9(1)(vi)

software, form an integral part of the equipments supplied by the Assessee and in the absence of one component, entire equipment cannot be put to use for which it has been supplied. 11. We find that while dealing with a similar issue, in DIT vs Ericsson

Tata Communications Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1014/MUM/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.1014/Mum/2015 Tata Communication Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, (Formerly Videsh Income Tax-1(3) Sanchar Nigan Limited) Aayakar Bhavan, Videsh Sanchar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 001 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacv2808C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: J.D. Mistry &For Respondent: Achal Sharma &

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234DSection 35D

cable during the 3 Appeal, Tata Communication Ltd. Vs. DCIT-1(3) 4 AYs.2003-04 2005-06 F.Y. 2002-03 and the same was put to use during the F.Y. 2002-03. During F.Y. 2005-06 it was transpired that a small portion of the liability amounting to Rs.13 ... Counsel also explained that installation of the SAFE cable was completed during F.Y. 2003-04 and same was also put to use during that year. The ld. Counsel contended that the A.O has reopened the case on change of opinion as the full facts of the matter detailed information were

Tata Communications Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5185/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2005-06

For Appellant: J.D. Mistry &For Respondent: Achal Sharma &

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234DSection 35D

Tata Communicatiosn Ltd ( Formerly Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4486/MUM/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2003-04

For Appellant: J.D. Mistry &For Respondent: Achal Sharma &

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234DSection 35D

M/S. Madura Coats Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax., (International Transaction), Circle- 1(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for A

ITA 1345/BANG/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(It)A Nos. 1344 & 1345/Bang/2019 Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Madura Coats Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of 7Th Floor, Jupiter Income Tax Prestige Technology (International Park, Vs. Taxation), Outer Ring Road, Circle – 1(2), Bangalore – 560 103. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcm8297K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Shehnawaz Ul Rahaman, Revenue By Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-05-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-12, Bangalore For A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18. It Is Submitted That The Issues Alleged By Assessee In Both These Years Are Identical & On Similar Facts. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: 2.1 Madura Coats Pvt Ltd (Mcpl) Is An Indian Company Carrying On The Business As Manufacturer & Merchant Of Sewing Threads & Other Goods, Possesses The Requisite Expertise & Experience By Virtue Of Having Several Qualified Personnel In Its Employment. During The Course Of Verification Conducted Us

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CA

Section 195Section 201(1)

facility, Page 33 IT(IT)A Nos. 1344 & 1345/Bang/2019 unless there is material to establish that the circuit/equipment could be accessed and put to use by the customer by means of positive acts, it does not fall under the category of 'royalty' in clause (iva) of Explanation

M/S. Madura Coats Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax., (International Transaction), Circle- 1(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for A

ITA 1344/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CA

Section 195Section 201(1)

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

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3279/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(1)Section 14ASection 92C

assessee had not produced necessary bills/vouchers for the said purchase and documents to prove that the software were put to use on the same day, also due to the AO's observation in the assessment order that the said ITA Nos.555/Bang/2017 & 3279/Bang/2018 Page 5 of 18 expense ... Against the non-allowance of depreciation the ld.AR submitted that the software was purchased on April 7, 2009 and March 31 2010 and put to use on the respective dates. Therefore as an alternate plea, the ld. AR submitted that the depreciation should be allowed in accordance with provisions

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

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 555/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(1)Section 14ASection 92C

The Jt. Comm of Income Tax (OSD) Cent .Cir-6(4), Mumbai vs. M/S D''Decor Properties LLP, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1743/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: This Extended Date, Accordingly, We Hold That There Is No Delay In Filing Of Appeal By The Revenue.

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

erred in allowing depreciation of Rs.10,63,89,191/- without appreciating that the assessee's office premises at BKC was yet to be put to use which is evident from the Leave & License Agreement dated 24.03.2018 as per which the licensee viz., D'Decor Home Fabrics Private Limited ... finance cost of Rs.3,39,24,035/- would not be eligible for deduction on the premise that the fixed assets were not put to use by the assessee for the business. All other expenses claimed by the assessee were allowed as deduction under the head „income from business

M/S. Star Chemical (Bombay) P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT CIT - 3(3), Mumbai

ITA 5987/MUM/2006[1996-1997]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2022AY 1996-1997

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri K. Shivaram, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi, Sr. A.R

each for A.Y. 1995-96 & 1996-97 on the ground that the assets in question were claimed to have been put to use for less than 180 days. 5. Assessee company claimed allowances to the tune of Rs.35.40 lakhs as revenue expenditure in A.Y. 1995-96 alleged to have been

M/S. Star Chemical (Bombay) P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT CIT - 3(3), Mumbai

ITA 5986/MUM/2006[1995-1996]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2022AY 1995-1996

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri K. Shivaram, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi, Sr. A.R

M/S. Macrotech Developers Ltd (Successor to Ajitnath Hi-Tech Builders Pvt. Ltd), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5022/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)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. Explanation.......... ....................(emphasis supplied)" 6 ITA 5021/Mum/2019 ITA 5022/Mum/2019 1.4 On plain reading of the Section it is clear

M/S. Macrotech Developers Ltd (Successor to Ajitnath Hi-Tech Builders Pvt. Ltd), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5021/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

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

M/S. Wipro Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2556/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore23 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.2556/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S. Ganesh, Sr. ARFor Respondent: Shri T. Roumuan Paite, D.R

Section 143(3)

extent of 7.96% should be capitalised, which worked out to Rs.1496.67 crores. The assessee contended that these software products have been put to use and hence depreciation @ 60% should be allowed. Since the details of actual date of putting the software to use were not available, the AO agreed ... restricted to 25%, as the assessee was creating intangible assets. The information with regard to the nature of assets created and put to use is not made available to the Panel. Hence, it is not possible to grant depreciation to the assessee in the given circumstances.” 6.4 The assessee raised