“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

Maxxis Rubber India Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1129/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 32(1)

additional depreciation also@ 20% of the cost of the asset in terms of section 32 of the Act. However, since those assets were put to use for less than 180 days the assessee had claimed 50% of the eligible additional depreciation, i.e 10% of the cost of eligible assets ... assessee had claimed additional depreciation @10% (50% of the prescribed rate) aggregating to Rs. 156,00,22,181/- on 'plant and machinery' put to use for a period of less than 180 days. Closing Written Down Value ('WDV') of the block 'Plant and Machinery' as on 31.03.2017 amounted to Rs.1419

ITO, Mumbai vs. Vatika Rayons Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2895/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Kavitha Kaushik (SR DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56Section 68

also gone out of circulation of assessee's business to the persons other than the assessee company and/or the funds so received are put to use for non-business purpose. The details show that the assessee has used the amounts it has received towards payment for the purchase of properties/investments

M/S.Apollo Tyres Ltd, Cochin vs. The Principal Commissioner of Incometax, Cochin

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

ITA 609/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Apollo Tyres Ltd. .......... Appellant 3Rd Floor, Areekal Mansion, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aaaca6990Q] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Adv. Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 35Section 43(1)Section 92C

Disallowance of additional depreciation u/s. 32(1)(iia) of the Act on the ground that the plant and machinery was acquired and put to use during the previous year relevant to AY 2012- 13. Since the assets were put to use for less than 180 days, additional depreciation was allowed ... facts and in law by disallowing revenue expenditure of Rs. 13,28,53,754/- (pre-operative expenses), incurred by appellant on assets put to use during the year for the expansion of its existing business of manufacturing tyres at Chennai Unit on an incorrect ground that the said expenses relate

Natesan Ekambaram, Chennai vs. DCIT Central Circle 1(2), Chennai

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee on this issue stands allowed

ITA 2873/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.:2873/Chny/2024 धनिाारणिर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Natesan Ekambaram, Dcit, 1/115, Bajanai Kovil Vs. Central Circle -1(2), Street, Chennai. Perumbakkam, Medavakkam Post, Chennai – 601 302 [Pan:Ackpe-6757-C] (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) (अपीलाथी/Appellant) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr.K.Vishwa Padmanabhan, Ca. प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mr.C.Sivakumar , Addl.Cit.

For Appellant: Mr.K.Vishwa Padmanabhan, CAFor Respondent: Mr.C.Sivakumar , Addl.CIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 54

project by this company. c) The assessee has claimed this land as agricultural land without furnishing any proof such as the land was put to use for agricultural purposes and proof of agricultural activity carried out in her land. d) The assessee vide her General Power of Attorney deed 14244/2013

Khandelwal Soya Industries Limited, Rampur vs. ACIT(Centeral), Bareilly

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

ITA 93/LKW/2022[F.Y.2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S. H. Usmani, CIT(DR)

Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 194H

going concern. The word used for the purposes of business is in wider sense, it will also include the circumstances that machinery was put to use. Refer to Niranjan Lal Ram Chandra v. CIT 49 ITR 177 (All) and integrated Technologies Ltd. v/s Commissioner of Income ... record which have not been challenged by the revenue. The other question as to whether the plant and machinery should have been actually put to use in order to be entitled to depreciation under Section 32 and that mere passive use, in the sense that they were kept ready

JCIT(OSD), Cir011(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Philips Carbon Black Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 234/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.234/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Jcit(Osd), Circle-11(1), Kolkata........................…...........................……….……Appellant Vs. M/S Philips Carbon Black Ltd.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Duncan House, 31 Netaji Subhas Road, Kol-1. [Pan: Aabcp5762E] Appearances By: Shri Praveen Kishore, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 30, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 29Th, 2025 Order Per Rajesh Kumar:

Section 144CSection 250Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80Section 80I

installed new plant and machinery for its manufacturing business. Some of such plant and I.T.A. No.234/Kol/2023 M/s Philips Carbon Black Ltd machinery were put to use for a period of less than 180 days during the said financial year and in respect of such plant and machinery, the assessee claimed ... allowed the assessee to claim the balance 10% of the additional depreciation in the relevant year in relation to the asset which were put to use for less than 180 days in preceding AY. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before

ACIT, Circle-3(2), New Delhi vs. Asian Consolidated Inds.Ltd), Rewari

In the result, all the 03 appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 7501/DEL/2018[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay, Accoutant Member Ita No. 6218/Del/2017 (Asstt. Year 1994-95) & Dcit, Circle-3(2), New Delhi Vs. M/S Asian Consolidated Industries Ltd., 96Th Mile Stone, Delhi-Jaipur Highway, Village-Bawal, Distt.- Rewari, Haryana (Pan: Aaaca5887A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ayush Garg, Ca Department By : Ms. Monika Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.08.2025 Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ayush Garg, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR

Section 264

actual cost thereof shall be allowed as a deduction in respect of the previous year in which such machinery or plant is first put to use by the assessee for the purposes of his business or profession." 34. Whereas the AO has allowed the depreciation at the rate

DCIT, Circle-3(2), New Delhi vs. Asian Consolidated Inds.Ltd), Rewari

In the result, all the 03 appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 4514/DEL/2018[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 1993-94

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ayush Garg, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR

Section 264

DCIT, Circle-3(2), New Delhi vs. Asian Consolidated Inds.Ltd), Rewari

In the result, all the 03 appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 6218/DEL/2017[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 1994-95

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ayush Garg, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR

Section 264

Shri Samarth Shravan Foundation, Pune vs. ITO, Exemption Ward 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 2730/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2025

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripote

Section 10Section 12ASection 8Section 80G

said to be an activity for Charitable purpose as defined u/s.2(15) of the Act. Only when the said immovable property is put to use for the objects of the Trust, then only the Assessee can claim that it has carried out activities as per the objects. In this case

Shri Samrath Shravak Foudation, Pune vs. ITO Exemption Ward 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 2729/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2025

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripote

Section 10Section 12ASection 8Section 80G

Addl CIT Ltu, Mumbai vs. Bajaj Holding & Investment Ltd ( Foremerly Known As Bajaj Auto Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 5510/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2007-08

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

Section 14ASection 80

Assessee, the life of the dies/mould would be approximately six months in majority of the cases. Therefore, the cost of dies and moulds put to use during the year, was claimed as an allowable deduction. The Assessing Officer was not convinced with the aforesald explanation offered by the Assessee ... since the said amount was lying in capital work In progress and the same was not put to use during the A.Y. 1990-91. We find that the Id. AO observed that the expenditure incurred on replacement of jigs and fixtures would be capital expenditure and accordingly, granted depreciation thereon

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Aurangabad vs. Endurance Technoligies Limited, Aurangabad

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

ITA 506/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrasr No 1

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak andFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR and

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 35(1)Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Aurangabad vs. Endurance Technologies Limited, Aurangabad

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

ITA 1661/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak andFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR and

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 35(1)Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Aurangabad vs. Endurance Technologies Limited, Aurangabad

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

ITA 1660/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrasr No 1

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 35(1)Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA

India Japan Lighting Private Limited, Chennai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 4, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1427/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1427/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 V. M/S. India Japan Lighting Pvt. Ltd., The Pcit-4, No.1, Tiruvallur High Road, Chennai. Puduchatram B.O., Thirumazhisai, Tiruvallur-600 124. [Pan: Aaaci 2673 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263

assessee, it is noted that as per Income tax Act, an assessee can claim depreciation only if an asset has been put to use. The Hon'ble Courts have held that depreciation is also to be allowed even in respect of those assets which are in ready to use condition ... addition of an asset to the Block of Assets takes place only when the asset has been put to use or is in ready to use condition. In the instant case, the assessee has placed the various approvals obtained from the Govt. departments for setting up the plant at Gujarat

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Ashok Leyland Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 2905/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.R. VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Ms.Ann Marry Baby, CIT

Section 143(2)Section 92B

aircraft and operating the aircraft does not M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd. :: 10 :: automatically qualify it to be eligible for depreciation unless it is put to use in business. Accordingly, the depreciation claimed on the above said aircraft, which according to the AO has been purchased for the personal usage instead ... claimed on Aircrafts. The AO disallowed these expenses on the ground that the aircrafts have not been put to used for the business of the Appellant. 11.1 The Appellant has submitted that it had purchased aircraft in 2007 for its business use due to increasing international business and connectivity

M/S T vs. Motor Company Limited, Chennaivs.ACIT Corporate Circle 3 (1), Chennai

ITA 2405/CHNY/2019[2014-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Aug 2025AY 2014-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 92C(2)

claimed in the earlier year. The Ld.AO held that additional depreciation is allowable only in respect of plant and machinery purchased and put to use in a year. The Ld.AO further held that assessee's reliance upon a favourable decision in its favour delivered by this tribunal ... submitted that "...These expenses will be capital in nature which will have to be capitalized and depreciation claimed as and when it is put in use. This clearly establishes the facts that this technical knowledge as an intangible asset clearly is eligible for depreciation as laid down

Tata Motors Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(4), Mumbai

ITA 3511/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon'Ble

Section 115BSection 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 32A

assets of Rs.39. 49 crore out of opening CWIP and Rs.58. 08 crore on account of capitalization of Interest expenses prior to put to use. The Act provides for deduction an investment exceeding 100 crore in new assets and installed during the prescribed period only. In the instant case

M/S. Religare Capital Markets Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 753/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 68Section 92Section 92B

been paid by the assessee, has been used by it for creation or purchase of assets which have not been put to use and hence should be disallowed under section 36(1) (iii) of the Act. 13 | P a g e 7.3 That on facts and in circumstances