← 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

Dalmia Bharat Sugar & Industries Ltd, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2007 – 08 is partly allowed and appeal of the learned assessing officer for that year is dismissed

ITA 1044/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Dalmia Bharat Sugar & Dcit, Industries Ltd. [Formerly Known Vs. As Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. Circle – 1, Ltu, 11Th & 12Th Floors, Hansalaya, 15 – Barakhamba Road, New Delhi New Delhi – 110 001. Pan: Aaacd2281K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Dalmia Bharat Sugar Circle – 1, Ltu, Vs. & Industries Ltd., New Delhi. 11Th & 12Th Floors, Hansalaya, 15 – Barakhamba Road, New Delhi – 110 001. Pan: Aaacd2281K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd, Vs. Acit (Ltu), (Now Known As Dalmia Bharat Nbcc Plaza, New Delhi Sugar & Industries Ltd), Hansalya, 11Th & 12Th Floors, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi Pan: Aaacd2281K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, New Delhi (Now Known As Dalmia Bharat Sugar & Industries Ltd), Hansalya, 11Th & 12Th Floors, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi Pan: Aaacd2281K

For Appellant: Shri R. M. Mehta, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DR
Section 143Section 254

confirmed the disallowance holding that as the assessee company has not been able to show that the power plant has been put to use by the lessee i.e. case of Power Ltd and no justification has been given as to why lease deed was made retrospective from 15th of March ... that assessee being a lessor of the power plant, has satisfied all the conditions of being the owner of the asset and having put to use the assets by assessee in the leasing business during the financial year 2004 – 05. Thus, he allowed the claim of depreciation on power plant

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Dalmia Bharat Sugar & Industries Ltd, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2007 – 08 is partly allowed and appeal of the learned assessing officer for that year is dismissed

ITA 1036/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Dalmia Bharat Sugar & Dcit, Industries Ltd. [Formerly Known Vs. As Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. Circle – 1, Ltu, 11Th & 12Th Floors, Hansalaya, 15 – Barakhamba Road, New Delhi New Delhi – 110 001. Pan: Aaacd2281K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Dalmia Bharat Sugar Circle – 1, Ltu, Vs. & Industries Ltd., New Delhi. 11Th & 12Th Floors, Hansalaya, 15 – Barakhamba Road, New Delhi – 110 001. Pan: Aaacd2281K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd, Vs. Acit (Ltu), (Now Known As Dalmia Bharat Nbcc Plaza, New Delhi Sugar & Industries Ltd), Hansalya, 11Th & 12Th Floors, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi Pan: Aaacd2281K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, New Delhi (Now Known As Dalmia Bharat Sugar & Industries Ltd), Hansalya, 11Th & 12Th Floors, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi Pan: Aaacd2281K

For Appellant: Shri R. M. Mehta, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DR
Section 143Section 254

confirmed the disallowance holding that as the assessee company has not been able to show that the power plant has been put to use by the lessee i.e. case of Power Ltd and no justification has been given as to why lease deed was made retrospective from 15th of March ... that assessee being a lessor of the power plant, has satisfied all the conditions of being the owner of the asset and having put to use the assets by assessee in the leasing business during the financial year 2004 – 05. Thus, he allowed the claim of depreciation on power plant

DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2007 – 08 is partly allowed and appeal of the learned assessing officer for that year is dismissed

ITA 4166/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Dalmia Bharat Sugar & Dcit, Industries Ltd. [Formerly Known Vs. As Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. Circle – 1, Ltu, 11Th & 12Th Floors, Hansalaya, 15 – Barakhamba Road, New Delhi New Delhi – 110 001. Pan: Aaacd2281K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Dalmia Bharat Sugar Circle – 1, Ltu, Vs. & Industries Ltd., New Delhi. 11Th & 12Th Floors, Hansalaya, 15 – Barakhamba Road, New Delhi – 110 001. Pan: Aaacd2281K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd, Vs. Acit (Ltu), (Now Known As Dalmia Bharat Nbcc Plaza, New Delhi Sugar & Industries Ltd), Hansalya, 11Th & 12Th Floors, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi Pan: Aaacd2281K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, New Delhi (Now Known As Dalmia Bharat Sugar & Industries Ltd), Hansalya, 11Th & 12Th Floors, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi Pan: Aaacd2281K

For Appellant: Shri R. M. Mehta, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DR
Section 143Section 254

confirmed the disallowance holding that as the assessee company has not been able to show that the power plant has been put to use by the lessee i.e. case of Power Ltd and no justification has been given as to why lease deed was made retrospective from 15th of March ... that assessee being a lessor of the power plant, has satisfied all the conditions of being the owner of the asset and having put to use the assets by assessee in the leasing business during the financial year 2004 – 05. Thus, he allowed the claim of depreciation on power plant

Dalmia Bharat Sugar and Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2007 – 08 is partly allowed and appeal of the learned assessing officer for that year is dismissed

ITA 4124/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Dalmia Bharat Sugar & Dcit, Industries Ltd. [Formerly Known Vs. As Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. Circle – 1, Ltu, 11Th & 12Th Floors, Hansalaya, 15 – Barakhamba Road, New Delhi New Delhi – 110 001. Pan: Aaacd2281K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Dalmia Bharat Sugar Circle – 1, Ltu, Vs. & Industries Ltd., New Delhi. 11Th & 12Th Floors, Hansalaya, 15 – Barakhamba Road, New Delhi – 110 001. Pan: Aaacd2281K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd, Vs. Acit (Ltu), (Now Known As Dalmia Bharat Nbcc Plaza, New Delhi Sugar & Industries Ltd), Hansalya, 11Th & 12Th Floors, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi Pan: Aaacd2281K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, New Delhi (Now Known As Dalmia Bharat Sugar & Industries Ltd), Hansalya, 11Th & 12Th Floors, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi Pan: Aaacd2281K

For Appellant: Shri R. M. Mehta, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DR
Section 143Section 254

confirmed the disallowance holding that as the assessee company has not been able to show that the power plant has been put to use by the lessee i.e. case of Power Ltd and no justification has been given as to why lease deed was made retrospective from 15th of March ... that assessee being a lessor of the power plant, has satisfied all the conditions of being the owner of the asset and having put to use the assets by assessee in the leasing business during the financial year 2004 – 05. Thus, he allowed the claim of depreciation on power plant