ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3(4),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. LUBRIZOL INDIA PVT LTD, THANE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the additional depreciation claim was allowable as the amendment to Section 32(1)(iia) was curative and the balance depreciation could be claimed in the subsequent year. It also held that CSR expenses are voluntary and eligible for deduction under Section 80G, with no correlation to disallowance under Section 37.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed additional depreciation on plant and machinery used for less than 180 days in FY 2014-15 and a deduction under Section 80G for CSR expenses. The Assessing Officer disallowed both claims, citing amendments to Section 32(1)(iia) and a correlation between CSR expenses and Section 80G claims.
What were the issues?
Whether additional depreciation on plant and machinery used for less than 180 days is allowable in the subsequent year, and whether CSR expenses are eligible for deduction under Section 80G.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Alubound Dacs India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT24 citing163 Taxmann.com 536 · 2024 · ITAT
- 4 (Karnataka), DCIT v. National Engineering Industrial Ltd.5 citing135 Taxmann.com 193 · 2022
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN & SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE
PER ANIKESH BANERJEE:
Instant appeal of the revenue was filed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi *for brevity, ‘L
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 32(1)(iia)
- Sudarshan Jeans Private Limited, Maharashtra vs Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 1, AmbalaITA 705/CHANDI/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Pramod Lakra, JCIT(in-Situ), Circle-11(1)… vs Bengal Beverages Private Limited, KolkataITA 1389/KOL/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Kunstocom (India) Limited, Defence Colony vs ACIT/DCIT, DelhiITA 3126/DEL/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed9 Sept 2026AY 2024-25
- Organica Aromatics Private Limited… vs DCIT (Central Circle)-3(2), Blr, BangaloreITA 803/BANG/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed31 Aug 2026AY 2017-18
- Sansera Engineering Limited, Bangalore vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 1959/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed21 Aug 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- A.Merchy Clara vs. The Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise (Appeals)Madras · 13 Oct 2026
- Nallathambi Thangaraj vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - IMadras · 13 Oct 2026
- Iyyanan Eswaran vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (St) (GST)Madras · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S. Hira Films PVT. LTD. vs. M/S. Prasad Film Labs (Mumbai) Private LimitedBombay · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Jung Bahadur Singh, Through Its Proprietor, Jang Bahadur Singh vs. The Union Of INDIA, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of RevenueJharkhand · 13 Oct 2026