← 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

M/S Majestic Infracon Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 12(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3710/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal Kishore, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ajaykumar Sharma, D.R
Section 37

assesses in the computation of total Income filed with the return of income with the remarks ‘interest till the asset is put to use’. Thus this disallowance of interest of Rs.63.20 crores offered as add, back in the computation of total income by the assesses Itself, clearly shows that

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - 21(1), Mumbai vs. Achal Housing LLP, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2696/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Kuldip Singh (Jm)

Section 271Section 47

Industries was received it was seen that they had subtracted the whole amount from the block assets even when the same is not put to use. That however on further enquiries with M/s Khosla Surgical Industries, it was stated by them that they received the possession of the galas

Excel Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. The CIT -CC-6(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 238/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleexcel Industries Ltd Vs. The Cit-Cc 6(3) 184-87, Excel Estate, 19Th Floor, Air India Sv Road, Jogeshwari Bldg, Nariman Point, (West)Mumbai – 400102 Mumbai – 400 021. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaace2488F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Kirit Kamdar. Ar Respondent By : Mr.Ajay Kumar. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19.01.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-54, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal. 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Disallowing A Sum Of Rs. 1,00,50,000/- Out Of Interest Paid Attributable To Loan To A Subsidiary. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Levying An Amount Of Rs. 5,42,910/- On Account Excel Industries Ltd, Mumbai. Of Interest U/S 115P For Dividend Distributed Under Section 115-O, For Which Dividend Distribution Tax Had Already Been Paid. 3. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Erred In Not Adjudicating The Ground On Additions Made To Book Profits U/S 115Jb.

For Appellant: Mr.Kirit Kamdar. ARFor Respondent: Mr.Ajay Kumar. DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 115PSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

issue was dealt and proportionate interest expenses are treated as capital expenditure and depreciation on such disallowance was allowed once the assets are put to use in the subsequent year and disallowed Rs. 23,05,497/- in the current Asst year.(ii) On the second disputed issue, the A.O made

M/S Herbalife International India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-11(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 2742/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year :2008-09 M/S. Herbalife International India Vs. Dcit - 11(4), Private Limited, Bengaluru. Pardhanani Wilshire #14, Commissariat Road, Bengaluru – 560 025. Pan : Aaach 8025 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 27.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.12.2021 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 27.08.2018 Of Cit(A)-3, Bengaluru, Relating To Assessment Year 2008-09. The Grounds Of Appeal Nos.2 To 12 Raised By The Assessee Reads As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri. Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

reproduced below: Page 6 of 16 Date on which Date of Sl. Amount leasehold Vacation of No. Location Address (Rs.) improvements premises put to use Mayur Gardens, Ground Floor, Opp. HDFC Bank, G.S. Not vacated Road, Guwahati- 1 Guwahati 31-03-2008 12,75,451 till date 781005 AL-Dossal ... considered as building or a building in the nature of temporary erection. Further since these assets worth Rs 24,78,074/- were put to use for less than 180 days, the depreciation rate would be 5%. 4.26 Guwahati - In relation to expenditure of Rs.12,75,451/- incurred in Guwahati

Nokia India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-6, New Delhi

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

ITA 6502/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 40Section 928Section 92C(1)

/Del/2017 [Assessment Year : 2013-14] • Cell phones and accessories given to service centres, dealers and employees free of cost is put to use for the business of the assessee. • The handsets are used in the business during the year and in the future also, an enduring benefit is being derived

DCIT, Circle- 12(1), New Delhi vs. Indo Rama Industries Ltd., Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is

ITA 6708/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora, Sr.DR
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 32

Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), not appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to prove that the fixed assets had been put to use during the year under consideration. 2.(a) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A} had erred in holding ... that the assets had been put to use during the year under assessment on the basis of the documents furnished during the appellate proceedings, not appreciating the fact that the assessee had failed to adduce any evidence during the assessment proceedings regarding having actually put the assets to use during

Srf Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 1, Ltu, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6620/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) Srf Limited Vs. Acit The Galleria, Dlf Mayur Circle – 1, Vihar, Unit No.236 & 237, Ltu 2Nd Floor, Mayur Place, New Delhi Noida Link Road, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, Extension, Delhi-110 091 Pan : Aaacs 0206 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep Dinodia, C.A. Revenue By Ms. Meera Srivastava, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 16.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.12.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am :

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

claimed 50% additional depreciation amounting to Rs.58,14,99,012/- u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act inadvertently on the assets put to use for less than 180 days in the immediately preceding assessment year while filing the return of income but same was claimed as an additional claim during ... that assessee claimed additional depreciation @10% (half of 20%) amounting to Rs.18,67,13,454/- on assets being the plant and machinery put to use for less than 180 days during the relevant assessment year 2010-11. The assessee claimed that in respect of additional 180 days or more

Hero Moto Corp Ltd., New Delhi vs. Neac, Delhi

ITA 706/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Pal
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 145Section 1lSection 80ISection 92C

taxable under the head “income from other sources”. Re: Disallowance of depreciation of CED Paint Shop - Put to use test not satisfied 18. Th 18. the ground that the appellant failed to substantiate that the said I plant and machinery was purchased and put to use by the appellant ... facts in holding 18.2 that since the plant was capitalized in the books of accounts on 31.03.2016, the same could not have been put to use during the relevant year, without appreciating that the evidences furnished by the appellant which substantiated that the asset was installed and actually used during

DCIT, Circle-12(1), New Delhi vs. Infrasoft Technologies Ltd., Mumbai

Accordingly, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 1761/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Dcit, Vs. Infrasoft Technologies Ltd, Circle-12(1), Unit No. 86 & 87, Sdf Iii, New Delhi Seepz Midc, Andheri East, Mumbai Pan: Aaacb2817R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10ASection 143Section 80H

rent and thus the second floor unit was independently established as per STPI permission and new assets, plant and machinery was installed and put to use. 6.1.20 Therefore since, the certificate for new STP unit was issued on 28/03/2000 and the appellant had already received advance for its export commitment

Classic Auto Tubes Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 2, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7815/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Vs Classic Auto Tubes Ltd. Addl. Cit 414/1, 4Th Floor, Dda Special Range-2 Commercial Complex, District New Delhi Centre, Janak Puri, New Delhi Pan: Aaccc6993K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. M. K. Giri, Adv Respondent By Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. Dr

Section 3Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(iia)

said Section makes it clear that only 50% of the 20% would be allowable, if the new plant and machinery so acquired is put to use for less than 180 days 5 in a financial year. However, if nowhere restricts that the balance 10% would not be allowed ... additional depreciation. By virtue of the proviso referred to above, only 10% can be claimed in one year, if plant and machinery is put to use for less than 180 days in the said financial year. This would necessarily mean that the balance 10% additional deduction can be availed

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ne Television Network Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3311/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Pundir, Senior DR
Section 250(4)

deleting disallowance of depreciation of Rs.28,76,386/- made by the Assessing Officer (the AO) on the ground that the assets were not put to use during the year under consideration without considering findings of facts as recorded by the AO and without recording his own findings on use ... been made during the year under consideration. On the other hand, AO disallowed the depreciation on the ground that assets were not put to use during the year. 10. Assessee has filed the details of date of purchase of assets before the ld. CIT (A) which is as under

ACIT, Circle- 14(2), New Delhi vs. Kribhco Shyam Fertilizers Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6100/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr.B.R.R.Kumar

Section 115J

disallowance of depreciation on spare machinery parts of Rs.37,76,959/-without appreciating the fact that the plant and machinery had not been put to use and assessee did not provide any details with regards to the same. (5) That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Kribhco Shyam Fertilizers Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3490/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr.B.R.R.Kumar

Section 115J

disallowance of depreciation on spare machinery parts of Rs.37,76,959/-without appreciating the fact that the plant and machinery had not been put to use and assessee did not provide any details with regards to the same. (5) That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Kribhco Shyam Fertilizers Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3489/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr.B.R.R.Kumar

Section 115J

disallowance of depreciation on spare machinery parts of Rs.37,76,959/-without appreciating the fact that the plant and machinery had not been put to use and assessee did not provide any details with regards to the same. (5) That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case

Shri Bhupinder Kumar Sekhari, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1767/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

Court had 'observed that to ascertain the true character and the nature of the land, it must be seen whether it has been put to use for agricultural purposes for a reasonable span of time prior to the relevant date and further whether on the relevant date the land ... intended to be put to use for agricultural purposes for a reasonable span of time in the future' . 7.15. The facts of the case at hand are: • Lands of village Rojka Gujar, which is an uninhabited village on the outskirts of Faridabad and falls in the Aravalli hills, are categorized

Smt Pooja Sekhari, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1766/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

Court had 'observed that to ascertain the true character and the nature of the land, it must be seen whether it has been put to use for agricultural purposes for a reasonable span of time prior to the relevant date and further whether on the relevant date the land ... intended to be put to use for agricultural purposes for a reasonable span of time in the future' . 7.15. The facts of the case at hand are: • Lands of village Rojka Gujar, which is an uninhabited village on the outskirts of Faridabad and falls in the Aravalli hills, are categorized

Shri Gaurav Sekhari, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1765/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

Court had 'observed that to ascertain the true character and the nature of the land, it must be seen whether it has been put to use for agricultural purposes for a reasonable span of time prior to the relevant date and further whether on the relevant date the land ... intended to be put to use for agricultural purposes for a reasonable span of time in the future' . 7.15. The facts of the case at hand are: • Lands of village Rojka Gujar, which is an uninhabited village on the outskirts of Faridabad and falls in the Aravalli hills, are categorized

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Louis Dreyfur Commodities India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

ITA 2479/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2010-11

Section 27iSection 920(3)Section 92D

annual report is reproduced as under: “Bid Support Services GPCL’s expertise in conducting audits and providing services in multilaterally funded projects was put to use in offering Bid Support Services to an Indian Contracting firm in its maiden international tender for an African Development Bank funded Highway Project

M/S. Louis Dreyfus Commodities, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2432/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2010-11

Section 27iSection 920(3)Section 92D

annual report is reproduced as under: “Bid Support Services GPCL’s expertise in conducting audits and providing services in multilaterally funded projects was put to use in offering Bid Support Services to an Indian Contracting firm in its maiden international tender for an African Development Bank funded Highway Project

Shri Bhupinder Kumar Sekhri, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5378/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

Court had 'observed that to ascertain the true character and the nature of the land, it must be seen whether it has been put to use for agricultural purposes for a reasonable span of time prior to the relevant date and further whether on the relevant date the land ... intended to be put to use for agricultural purposes for a reasonable span of time in the future' . 7.15. The facts of the case at hand are: • Lands of village Rojka Gujar, which is an uninhabited village on the outskirts of Faridabad and falls in the Aravalli hills, are categorized