← 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

Late Smt.K.Leelavathy by L/R Shri M.Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 754/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 153CSection 2(14)(iii)

till the date of sale. Further the lands were either not converted for use for non-agricultural purposes or after conversion were not put to use for non- agricultural purposes within 2 years. The lands were classified as ITA Nos.752 to 755/Bang/2019 Page 4 of 79 agricultural lands ... Failure to comply with the condition would render the land conversion to be invalid. In this backdrop, since the land had not been put to use for its intended purpose, the lands automatically restored to its original nature of agriculture land on the expiry of two years

Late Smt.K>Leelavathy by L/R Shri.M.Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 753/BANG/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 153CSection 2(14)(iii)

till the date of sale. Further the lands were either not converted for use for non-agricultural purposes or after conversion were not put to use for non- agricultural purposes within 2 years. The lands were classified as ITA Nos.752 to 755/Bang/2019 Page 4 of 79 agricultural lands ... Failure to comply with the condition would render the land conversion to be invalid. In this backdrop, since the land had not been put to use for its intended purpose, the lands automatically restored to its original nature of agriculture land on the expiry of two years

Late Smt.K.Leelavathy by L/R Shri M.Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 752/BANG/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 153CSection 2(14)(iii)

till the date of sale. Further the lands were either not converted for use for non-agricultural purposes or after conversion were not put to use for non- agricultural purposes within 2 years. The lands were classified as ITA Nos.752 to 755/Bang/2019 Page 4 of 79 agricultural lands ... Failure to comply with the condition would render the land conversion to be invalid. In this backdrop, since the land had not been put to use for its intended purpose, the lands automatically restored to its original nature of agriculture land on the expiry of two years

Mr. Syed Mustafa Kamal Pasha, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 705/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Mr.Syed Mustafa Kamal Pasha, Deputy Commissioner No.3, 4Th Main Road, Of Income Tax, Vs. Jayamahal Extension, Circle - 6(2)(1) Bangalore Bangalore Pan – Adcpk8497N Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Assessee by Sri Sanketh Nayak, CA
Section 133(6)

billed only on 29-03-2012 and 30-03-2012. The AR was asked to furnish material to support that the windmills were put to use during the year. The AR submitted copies of certificates confirming the commissioning of the windmills. However, by commissioning, it is implied that connection ... wiring is done, meter is fixed but it does not prove that the windmills were put to use. Hence, a letter dated 27-03-2015 was faxed addressed to the officer in KPTCL u/s.133(6) of the Act, for confirming the production of electricity and bills if any to support

G N Venugopal, Devanahalli vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(4), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of assessee for all these assessment years are partly allowed

ITA 306/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

Section 127Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

purchased the Agricultural land and sold the same as Agricultural land and there is no intention to convert into non-agricultural land or put to use non agricultural purpose and further the Revenue records shows that the said land as Agricultural land only. Hence it cannot be considered ... purchased and sold was agricultural land and there was no intention or evidence that the land was converted to non- agricultural land or put to use for non-agricultural purposes, then it cannot be considered as a capital asset u/s 2(14) of the Act 3. Harniks Park

G N Venugopal, Devanahalli vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(4), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of assessee for all these assessment years are partly allowed

ITA 305/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

Section 127Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

purchased the Agricultural land and sold the same as Agricultural land and there is no intention to convert into non-agricultural land or put to use non agricultural purpose and further the Revenue records shows that the said land as Agricultural land only. Hence it cannot be considered ... purchased and sold was agricultural land and there was no intention or evidence that the land was converted to non- agricultural land or put to use for non-agricultural purposes, then it cannot be considered as a capital asset u/s 2(14) of the Act 3. Harniks Park

G N Venugopal, Devanahalli vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(4), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of assessee for all these assessment years are partly allowed

ITA 304/BANG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

Section 127Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

purchased the Agricultural land and sold the same as Agricultural land and there is no intention to convert into non-agricultural land or put to use non agricultural purpose and further the Revenue records shows that the said land as Agricultural land only. Hence it cannot be considered ... purchased and sold was agricultural land and there was no intention or evidence that the land was converted to non- agricultural land or put to use for non-agricultural purposes, then it cannot be considered as a capital asset u/s 2(14) of the Act 3. Harniks Park

G N Venugopal, Devanahalli vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(4), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of assessee for all these assessment years are partly allowed

ITA 303/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

Section 127Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

purchased the Agricultural land and sold the same as Agricultural land and there is no intention to convert into non-agricultural land or put to use non agricultural purpose and further the Revenue records shows that the said land as Agricultural land only. Hence it cannot be considered ... purchased and sold was agricultural land and there was no intention or evidence that the land was converted to non- agricultural land or put to use for non-agricultural purposes, then it cannot be considered as a capital asset u/s 2(14) of the Act 3. Harniks Park

M/S Ashish Land & Property Developers Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 9 (1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 907/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Blem/S. Ashish Land & Property V. Income Tax Officer – 9(1)(4) Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai 10Th Floor, 215, Atrium Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai - 400059 Pan: Aagca2673J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Department By : Shri Mehul Jain

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 24Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

been inserted to disentitle claim of interest on funds borrowed for acquisition of capital asset for the period upto the asset is put to use. The term ‘put to use’ here applies to capital asset only because a capital asset is held to facilitate the business activity and some time

M/S. Akkayya Hospitality Services (Formerly Known As Akkayya Consultancy Services), Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2545/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm M/S.Akkayya Hospitality Assistant Commissioner Of Services, Income Tax, (Formerly Known As Akkayya Presently Circle-1[2][1], Consultancy Services), Vs. Bmtc Building, No.21/6, Craig Park Layout, 80 Feet Road, 6Th Block, M.G.Road, Koramangala, Bengaluru Bengaluru Pan – Aaafz1935B Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Sri Narendra Sharma, Advocate Respondent By: Smt.Priyadarshini Basaganni, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing: 04.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.04.2022 O R D E R Per George Geroge K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Cit(A)-1, Bengaluru’S Order Dated 26-09-2019. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2008-09. 2. The Solitary Issue Argued By The Ld.Ar Is Whether The Cit(A) Is Justified In Not Deleting The Entire Disallowance Of Interest Expenditure Made By The Ao (Disallowance Of Interest Expendtiure Made By Ao Rs.3,65,13,949/-).

For Appellant: Sri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Basaganni, Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)

completed during 31-12-2007. The CIT(A) directed the allowance of interest for the part of the asset which was capitalized and put to use as on 1st April, 2007. Further, the CIT(A) 3 directed the AO to allow interest on the balance cost to the asset completed ... borrowed funds, utilized for the construction of the Hotel project, depends on the date on which the connected Hotel asset was completed and put to use. Accordingly, on the value of that part of the Hotel completed by March 2007 (upto 4th floor), the interest on the loan during

Tata Power Solar Systems Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the legal issue

ITA 699/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 548/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Tata Power Solar The Deputy Systems Ltd., Commissioner Of 78, Electronic City, Income Tax, Hosur Road, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 100. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact4660J Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 699/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Kanchun Kaushal, Ca : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals By Assessee & Revenue Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle -7 (1)(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2011-12 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: It(Tp)A No. 548/Bang/2016 (Revenue’S Appeal): “1. The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel Are Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, CA
Section 144C

setoff against CWIP, ignoring the fact that the net amount of CWIP was capitalised in the subsequent years when the relevant assets were put to use for the purpose of carrying the business. [corresponding to Ground 6 (a)] 12. Without prejudice to the ground no. 10 above, the learned

M/S Kemwell Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 657/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Harish V.S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh D, JCIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 2(11)Section 32Section 50

previous financial year. The assessee also submitted that during the year under consideration, no depreciation was claimed since the asset was not put to use for business purposes during the year. The assessee further submitted that, the assets continued to be part of the block of Page

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Tata Power Solar Systems Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the legal issue

ITA 548/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 548/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Tata Power Solar The Deputy Systems Ltd., Commissioner Of 78, Electronic City, Income Tax, Hosur Road, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 100. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact4660J Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 699/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Kanchun Kaushal, Ca : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals By Assessee & Revenue Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle -7 (1)(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2011-12 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: It(Tp)A No. 548/Bang/2016 (Revenue’S Appeal): “1. The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel Are Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, CA
Section 144C

setoff against CWIP, ignoring the fact that the net amount of CWIP was capitalised in the subsequent years when the relevant assets were put to use for the purpose of carrying the business. [corresponding to Ground 6 (a)] 12. Without prejudice to the ground no. 10 above, the learned

Mr K. P. Manjunatha Reddy, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(3)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 977/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Thirumala Naidu, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Mishra, D.R
Section 10(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 271(1)(c)

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

Cox & Kings Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO RG 1(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1716/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Cox & Kings Ltd., Income Tax Officer- Turner Morrison Building, 1(1)(1), 534/579, 5Th Floor, 16 Bank Street, Vs. Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Aayakar Bhawan, Pan: Aaacc1921B M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer- M/S. Cox & Kings Ltd., 1(1)(1), Turner Morrison Building, 534/579, 5Th Floor, Vs. 16 Bank Street, Aayakar Bhawan, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 M.K. Road, Pan: Aaacc1921B Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, D.R
Section 92B

treat the disallowance of expenditure incurred in proportion to the amount of debenture used, for purchasing fixed assets of Rs.40.87 Crores and not put to use and which was utilized for issue of NCD's, as revenue expenditure, despite the fact that the assessee has itself charged the said expenses

Jsw Steel Limited, Mumbai vs. Addlcit, Bangalore

858/M/2011

ITA 858/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Amarjit Singh () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Jsw Steel Limited, The Addl. Cit, Range 11, Jindal Mansion, 5A, Vs. Bangalore. Dr. G. Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dc. Cc.46, M/S Jsw Steel Ltd., R.No. 659, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. Jindal Mansion, 5-A, Dr. G Bhavan, M.K. Road, Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Jsw Steel Ltd., Dcit, Central Circle 46, Jsw Centre, Bandra Kurla Vs. 6Th Flr., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Complex, Road, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Danesh Bafna &For Respondent: Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 37(1)

Plant and therefore, should have been capitalized. The A.R. argued that since the upfront fees were paid after the plant and machinery were put to use, it is allowable as revenue expenditure. I see both are looking to two different sides of the same claim but I observe ... upfront fee’ of ₹1,15,20,193/-was claimed by the assessee as revenue expenditure, as same was paid after the plant was put to use. This factual position has not been disputed by the Revenue. The assessee has claimed the said expenditure as revenue expenditure treating the expenditure

ACIT Cirrcle-3 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Skycape Developers Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed being devoid of any merit

ITA 6776/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 6776/मुं/2019("न. व .2014-15) Acit,Circle -3(3), Room No.628, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 005 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Skyscape Developers Pvt.Ltd. Shapoorji Pllonji Centre, 41/44, Minoo Desai Marg, Colaba, Mumbai – 400 005 Pan: Aajcs- 8938-H ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Vinod Tanwani ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Dr. K.Shivram, Sr. Advocate सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 16/12/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 10/03/2022

For Appellant: Shri Vinod TanwaniFor Respondent: Dr. K.Shivram, Sr. Advocate

Ld.CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance of depreciation of Rs.9,97,11,787/- holding that building Block C was put to use without appreciating the findings of the AO that building Block C was not completed for lease out as flooring margin, duct of ACs and other amenities ... were not finished and thus, the building was not put to use? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance of interest expenses of Rs.20,05,29,277/- without appreciating that the building Block

Altran Technologies India Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 2904/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2904/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Altran Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., C/O Ernst & Young Llp, The Deputy Ground & 1St Floor, Commissioner Of Income ‘A’ Wing, Divyasree Chambers, Tax, Vs. #11, O’ Shaughnessy Road, Circle – 1 (1)(1), Langford Gardens, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan: Aaaca7125R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 31/10/2017 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 1(1)(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Altran Technologies India Private Limited (The 'Appellant') Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The 'Id. Ao') Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (The 'Act') Pursuant To The Directions Issued By The Hon'Ble Dispute Resolution Panel (`Drp') On The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C

u/s.40(a)(ia) in respect of depreciation claimed on the software purchased. The assessee during the year under consideration, purchased software hat was put to use during the year. The assessee computed the depreciation on addition of the software at Rs.66,66,090/- as an allowable deduction while computing

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for parity of reasons

ITA 1602/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 1602/मुं/2020 ("न. व. 2015-16) आअसं. 1600/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2017-18) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Taxation Section, 4Th Floor, Bharat Bhavan, 4 & 6 Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001 Pan: Aaacb-2902-M ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -2, Room No.344, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Jehangir D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : S/Shri Rahul Raman & B.K. Bagchi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/02/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D. Mistry, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Rahul Raman & B.K. Bagchi
Section 10(34)Section 236Section 263Section 32A

itself classifies gas cylinders as Machinery and Plant. When the gas cylinders are used for refilling, they are deemed to be installed or put to use. 4.4. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, referred to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT, Circlr-2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for parity of reasons

ITA 1600/MUM/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 1602/मुं/2020 ("न. व. 2015-16) आअसं. 1600/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2017-18) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Taxation Section, 4Th Floor, Bharat Bhavan, 4 & 6 Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001 Pan: Aaacb-2902-M ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -2, Room No.344, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Jehangir D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : S/Shri Rahul Raman & B.K. Bagchi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/02/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D. Mistry, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Rahul Raman & B.K. Bagchi
Section 10(34)Section 236Section 263Section 32A

itself classifies gas cylinders as Machinery and Plant. When the gas cylinders are used for refilling, they are deemed to be installed or put to use. 4.4. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, referred to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case