“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

Srf Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 80/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92BSection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘H’: NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK

Vodafone West Limited, (Formerly Known As Vodafone Essar Gujarat Limited), Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 671/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri K.K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 45Section 47Section 48Section 50D

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

The Dy CIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Vodafone West Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 1634/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri K.K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 45Section 47Section 48Section 50D

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Ghodawat Skystar LLP (Formerly Ghodawat Consumer Products LLP), Kolhapur vs. DCIT Circle 1, Kolhapur

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

ITA 1400/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Pune09 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19 Ghodawat Skystar Llp Dcit, Circle – 1, Kolhapur (Formerly Ghodawat Consumer Products Llp) Vs. Plot No.438, Ap Chipri Via Jaysingpur Shirol, Kolhapur – 416101 Pan: Aamfg7028C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B S Rajpurohit Department By : Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 08-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-12-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri B S RajpurohitFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl.CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

Rs.17.08 crores under various blocks. However, he noticed that in many of the cases the date of purchase and the date of put to use of the asset is stated 31.03.2018. Since the machinery requires some time for installing the same in the factory before commencing its commercial production ... given by the assessee, 3 the Assessing Officer disallowed depreciation of Rs.1,00,05,726/- since the assets according to him were not put to use to the tune of Rs.14,05,02,616/- which were purchased on 31.03.2018. The Assessing Officer, adopting the rate of interest @ 12% attributable

M/S Gera Developments Pvt. Ltd, Pune vs. PCIT (Central), Pune

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

ITA 1053/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

examination of claim. (ii) The intangible asset has been impaired in the previous year and as such cannot be considered to have been put to use for the purpose of business of the assessee. (iii) The intangible asset is not treated as an asset in the books of accounts

DCIT, Pune vs. Quick Heal Technologies Limited, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2031/PUN/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil MuthaFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 17Section 263

name of erstwhile owner being M/s Jalan Construction Company (Vijay Narayan Jalan). iii) Further, to substantiate the claim that the said property was put to use by the company in the financial year 2013-14, we had submitted electricity bill for the month of September 2019 (refer page ... March 2014 showing average electricity consumption of about Rs.4.5 lacs per month starting from July, 2013 which clearly shows that the property was put to use during the financial year 2013-14 starting from July 2013. In view of the facts as discussed above the Assessee is entitled to depreciation

Royal Chains Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 3(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4260/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 69ASection 80

put it to use, the same cannot be subjected to depreciation u/s 32 of the Act. The Ld.AR submitted that assessee had not put to use the second factory building and, therefore, it cannot be added in the working of block of asset nor it can be 21 LT.A ... Ld.AO was of the view that the second factory building should be included in the block of asset even though it was not put to use for the purpose of business, at any time, since inception. 6.3. The Ld.AR before us submits that, the surrender of no carry forward

Viacom 18, Media Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT-8, Mumbai

ITA 2591/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Agarwal/Ms. MokshaFor Respondent: Mr. Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 32

Detail of additional depreciation claimed, if any along with the justification for the same v) Date of purchase and date of put to use for the assets acquired during the year along with documentary evidence” 5.2 In response to above query, the assessee through reply dated 03/09/2021 filed submission

Repal Green Power Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT Circle -3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 474/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.125/Hyd/2022 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Repal Green Power Private Limited, The Dcit, Circle-8(1), Vs. Hyderabad. Hyderabad – 500 081 Pan Aahcr2187F (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.474/Hyd/2022 Assessment Year 2018-2019 Repal Green Power Private Limited, The Dcit, Circle-3(1), Vs. Hyderabad. Hyderabad – 500 081 Pan Aahcr2187F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri Harsh R Shah, Advocate & Ca Karan Jain राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri Harsh R Shah, Advocate &For Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 234Section 234DSection 270ASection 32Section 32A

well as additional depreciation under Section 32(iia) on plant and machinery by holding that the plant and machinery was not put to use in the current year. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. AO, under the direction

DCIT 2(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Icici Bank Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 3 of appeal of

ITA 1550/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Icici Bank Limited, Dcit, 2(3)(2), Mumbai, Icici Bank Towers, North East Wing, Vs Aayakarbhavan, 1St Floor, Bandrakurla Complex, Mumbai – 400020. Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. [Pan No. Aaaci1195H] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue (Physical Hearing) Dcit, 2(3)(2), Mumbai, Icici Bank Limited Aayakar Bhavan, Vs Icici Bank Towers, North East Wing, 1St Floor, Bandrakurla Complex, Mumbai – 400020. Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. [Pan No. Aaaci1195H] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 10(15)Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 92CSection 92C(3)(c)

fixed assets capitalised on March 31, 2009 on the ground that no evidence was furnished by the Appellant that the said assets were put to use on March 31, 2009. GENERAL 5. The Appellant craves leave and reserves its right to vary, amend, alter and/or add to the grounds ... fixed asset capitalised on 31.03.2009. The assessing officer disallowed depreciation on the ground that assessee has not furnished any evidence that asset was put to use on 31.03.2009. The ld. CIT(A) upheld that action of assessing officer. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that software were purchases before

Icici Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 3 of appeal of

ITA 4418/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Section 10(15)Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 92CSection 92C(3)(c)

Vermeiren India Rehab Private Limited, Tirupati vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Tirupati

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

ITA 1315/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Bagmar R, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS. U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 32

following grounds: 2.1.1. That the Ld. AO/DRP erred in not granting depreciation on building under section 32 of the Act which has been put to use in the subject financial year/assessment year and all other conditions for such grant were satisfied. 2.1.2. That the Ld. AO/DRP erred in relying ... extraneous material and came to conclusion on conjectures and surmises that the building was not put to use, when the fact remains that the building was put to use by the Appellant/Assessee for its use as a factory and disregarded the extra-ordinary circumstances (due to Covid

Signode India Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

ITA 240/HYD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri H. SrinivasuluFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 32

Signode India Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

ITA 434/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri H. SrinivasuluFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 32

ACIT, Chennai vs. Updater Services Limited, Chennai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by both the assessee and the Revenue, as well as the grounds raised in the cross-objections filed by the assessee, are treated as allowed for statistical...

ITA 1616/CHNY/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1339 /Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Updater Services Limited (Formerly Dcit, Known As Updater Services Private Vs. Central Circle -2(3), Limited), No.2/302-A, Uds Salai, Chennai. Off Old Mahabalipuram Road, Thoraipakkam, Chennai – 600 097. [Pan:Aaacu-6845-J] (अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'थ%/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. K. Prasanna, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T

Section 115QSection 250Section 263Section 391Section 77A

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. The grounds raised by the assessee in CO No.66/Chny/2025 are as 4. follows: 1. Non-applicability of Section ... capital borrowed for business is allowable, the proviso disallows any interest on funds borrowed for acquiring an asset until the asset is first put to use. In the case of the assessee company, a sum of Rs.57,06,25,000/- was paid for the buyback, and it is evident from

M/S. Updater Services Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Chennai

ITA 1339/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. K. Prasanna, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T

Section 115QSection 250Section 263Section 391Section 77A

Nilesh Ishwar Mehta, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-17(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4931/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarnilesh Ishwar Mehta V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of 2301/A, 23Rd Floor, बनाम Income Tax-17(1) Parthenon Building, J.P. Room No. 117, Kautilya Road, Mumbai – 400 053, Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G-Block, Maharashtra Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacpm2417P Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi,ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (Sr.AR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 56(2)(vii)

agreement and the registration of the impugned property were concluded on 26.09.2012 relevant to AY 2013-14.The property being office premises, was only put to use during the year under consideration. The assessee also placed reliance on several decisions of various co- ordinate benches of ITAT where on identical facts

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -1, Ludhiana vs. Aarti International Ltd., Ludhiana

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 464/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 14ASection 69

account of disallowance of depreciation & additional depreciation as tfle assessee company has failed to establish that the assets were put to use before 31.03.2018. 2. Whether upon facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) was justified in holding that the machinery was put to use during ... under: (v) The appellant has brought a lot of material on record, to substantiate its submission that the plant and machinery was actually put to use. During the appellant proceedings, undersigned raised a query that generator was installed on 31.3.2028. Then how the production can commence without the generator

Shri Natarajan Somasundaram, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-8(2), Chennai

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

ITA 788/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.788/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Natarajan Somasundaram, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, E-105, Periyar Vegetable Market, Non-Corporate Ward 8(2), Koyambedu, Chennai 600 092. Chennai. [Pan:Aajps6303B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 04.10.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 443 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, In The Interest Of Justice, We Condone The Delay Of 450 Days By Imposing Cost

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 24Section 32

disallowing the claim of depreciation on the asset used for business purposes without appreciating the fact that the asset was acquired and put to use exclusively for the purposes of the assessee’s business. He vehemently argued that the disallowance is contrary to the provisions of section ... revenue generated from the asset was minimal cannot be a valid ground for disallowance, as the law only requires the asset to be “put to use” during the relevant year. 7. The ld. DR Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT submits that there was no proof at all furnished before the Assessing

Shri Rajkot District Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Rajkot vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1(2), Rajkot

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 196/RJT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.196/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) Shri Rajkot District Co-Operative Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle-1(1), Jilla Bank Bhavan, Kasturba Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Opp. Chaudhary High School, Road, Rajkot-360001 Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afups2094H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Smt. Pallavi, Ld. Cit(Dr) : 06/08/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 04/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay)-2018-19, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax Office [(In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] Vide Order Dated 29.12.2023, Which In Turn Assessment Order Passed By Income Tax Department / Assessing Officer Under Section 144C(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Vide Order Dated 30.03.2023 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee, Are As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Pallavi, Ld. CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

Special Economic Zone Re- investment Reserve Account is to be utilised- (i) for the purposes of acquiring machinery or plant which is first put to use before the expiry of a period of three years following the previous year in which the reserve was created; and (ii) until the acquisition ... along with the return of income61 for the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such plant or machinery was first put to use. (3) Where any amount credited to the Special Economic Zone Re-investment Reserve Account under clause (ii) of sub-section (1),- (a) has been