← All Phrases

“Section 32(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 32Section 32(1)889 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 32(1) is CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd. (348 ITR 302), cited in 540 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 32(1)

CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd.
348 ITR 302 · 2012 · Supreme Court
540
citing judgments

Goodwill, whether arising from an amalgamation or a slump sale, is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1) of the Income-tax Act. While the assessee must prove the existence and valuation of such goodwill, it is recognized as a depreciable asset.

Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. CIT
228 ITR 253 · 1997 · Supreme Court
429
citing judgments

A subsidy is treated as a revenue receipt if the assessee is free to use the money in its business as it likes and is not obligated to spend it for a specific capital purpose, such as acquiring assets or repaying loans.

Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT
116 ITR 1 · 1979 · Supreme Court
409
citing judgments

A gain arising from the cancellation of a forward exchange contract entered into for the acquisition of a capital asset constitutes a capital receipt. Income-tax liability for such transactions is determined by the specific provisions of the Income Tax Act, independent of the accounting treatment in the books of account.

Vijaya Bank v. CIT
323 ITR 166 · 2010 · Supreme Court
392
citing judgments

A provision for bad and doubtful debts debited to the profit and loss account and reduced from advances on the balance sheet constitutes a write-off for deduction purposes. This is true even if individual debtor accounts are not closed.

CIT v. Bokaro Steel Ltd.
236 ITR 315 · 1999 · Supreme Court
370
citing judgments

Interest earned during the pre-commencement period of a project, on advances made to contractors or on unutilized borrowed funds, if inextricably linked to the setting up of the plant, constitutes a capital receipt. Such interest is not taxable as income but can be reduced from the capital work-in-progress.

Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT
196 ITR 188 · 1992 · Supreme Court
289
citing judgments

Provisions in taxing statutes that grant incentives, concessions, or exemptions for promoting economic growth and industrialization must be interpreted liberally and purposively. Any restrictions placed on such provisions should also be construed reasonably to advance their objective, not frustrate it.

ICDS Ltd. v. CIT
350 ITR 527 · 2013 · Supreme Court
280
citing judgments

An assessee engaged in the business of hire purchase or leasing, being the lessor, is entitled to claim depreciation on assets leased out, even if the assets are registered in the name of the lessee and used by the lessee.

Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. CIT
177 ITR 377 · 1989 · Supreme Court
275
citing judgments

Expenditure that provides a commercial advantage of an enduring nature may still be classified as revenue expenditure if its purpose is to facilitate existing trading operations, improve business efficiency, or upgrade existing products, depending on the specific context and objective.

Judgments citing Section 32(1)

Oriental Buildtech Private Limited, New Delhi vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 7, Delhi, C.R. Building, ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 3263/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Itat Which Was Decided Through Order Dated 23.02.2023. As Per Directions Of Itat, Ld. Pcit Passed Order Dated 31.10.2023. 3. Being Aggrieved, Appellant/Assessee Preferred Present Appeal.

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 48

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORESHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR

Olympic Decor LLP, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr.CIT, Ahmedabad-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 423/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Olympic Décor Llp Pr.Commissioner Of 6, Patel Avenue, Nr.Gurudwara Vs Income Tax-3 Sg Highway, Bodakdev Ambawadi Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan : Adafs 2113 H (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate & Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ars : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 28Section 32(1)(ii)Section 32(2)Section 68Section 80I

detailed revisionary order dated 22.02.2024, the PCIT recorded that the AO had failed to examine the claim of depreciation on goodwill under section 32(1)(ii), though it had been disallowed in earlier years (A.Y. 2016–17) and was claimed again in the year under consideration despite the matter being ... wherein the claim of depreciation on goodwill was upheld after thorough analysis of the amalgamation scheme, valuation report, and relevant provisions of section 32(1)(ii). It was therefore submitted that once the depreciation on goodwill was allowed in earlier years and has attained finality by way of a binding

JCIT (OSD)Cen Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Grasim Industires Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly

ITA 3334/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri N.K. Billaiya, Am

Section 37(1)Section 40Section 8O

intensity of use, etc., the more disaggregated has to be the record- keeping. Moreover, the practice of granting the terminal allowance as per section 32(1)(iii) or taxing the balancing charge as per section 41(2) of the Income-tax Act necessitate the keeping of records of depreciation already ... that the Legislature has also deleted the provision for allowing terminal depreciation in respect of each asset, which was previ- ously allowable under section 32(1) (iii) and also taxing of balancing charge under section 41(2) in the year of sale. Instead of these two provisions

Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2224/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri N.K. Billaiya, Am M/S Grasim Industries Ltd. Dcit, (Corporate Finance Division) Central Circle 1(4), A-2, Aditya Birla Centre, Vs. Room No. 902, S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, Old Cgo Building, Mumbai - 400030 Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacg 4464B Dcit, M/S Grasim Industries Ltd. Central Circle 1(4), (Corporate Finance Division) Room No. 902, A-2, Aditya Birla Centre, Old Cgo Building, Vs. S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai - 400030 Appellant By : Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. Advocate, Shri Madhur Agarwal & Respondent By : Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit(Dr) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT(DR)
Section 37(1)Section 40Section 80I

intensity of use, etc., the more disaggregated has to be the record- keeping. Moreover, the practice of granting the terminal allowance as per section 32(1)(iii) or taxing the balancing charge as per section 41(2) of the Income-tax Act necessitate the keeping of records of depreciation already ... that the Legislature has also deleted the provision for allowing terminal depreciation in respect of each asset, which was previ- ously allowable under section 32(1) (iii) and also taxing of balancing charge under section 41(2) in the year of sale. Instead of these two provisions

Narke Green Foundation Charitable Institution, Mumbai vs. CIT(Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 1864/MUM/2025[N.A ]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2025

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 119Section 12ASection 143(1)(a)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

behalf of the assessee is concerned, section 10B (8) is an exemption provision which cannot be compared with claiming an additional depreciation under section 32(1) (ii-a) of the Act. As per the settled position of law, an assessee claiming exemption has to strictly and literally comply with

Torrent Energy Limited (Now Merged With Torrent Power Limited), Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT Circle 4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 160/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2011-12 Torrent Energy Limited The Acit, Cir.4(1)(1) (Now Merged With Torrent Power Ltd) Ahmedabad. Samanvay, 600, Tapovan Ambawadi, Ahmedabad Pan : Aacct 8570 B (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ar : Smt.Trupti Patel, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/05/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, AR
Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 251Section 254Section 32(1)(ii)Section 37(1)

section 143(3), the assessee filed a written submission dated 07.11.2011 before the then Assessing Officer claiming depreciation on the leasehold rights under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, treating the rights as “intangible assets.” Subsequently, to avoid protracted litigation, the assessee chose not to press the claim

The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 281/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 35Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 92C

section 43(1) of the I.T. Act and other provisions related to the amalgamation specially section 2(1B), sixth proviso to section 32(1), section 49(1)(iii)(e), explanation 2 to section 43(6) and section 55(2). 8. Whether the CIT(A) has erred ... books of the amalgamating company and was artificially created in the books of the amalgamated company, and hence, no depreciation was allowable under section 32(1)(ii). The Revenue further argues that the actual cost of such goodwill should be treated as nil in view of Explanation 7 to section

Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 222/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 35Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 92C

section 43(1) of the I.T. Act and other provisions related to the amalgamation specially section 2(1B), sixth proviso to section 32(1), section 49(1)(iii)(e), explanation 2 to section 43(6) and section 55(2). 8. Whether the CIT(A) has erred ... books of the amalgamating company and was artificially created in the books of the amalgamated company, and hence, no depreciation was allowable under section 32(1)(ii). The Revenue further argues that the actual cost of such goodwill should be treated as nil in view of Explanation 7 to section

Adp India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), Chennai

ITA 2698/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं/.Ita Nos.: 2670, 2671, 2672 & 2698/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Adp India Private Limited, Thamarai Tech Park, 6Th Floor, Sp Plot No. 16 To 20 & 20A, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Inner Ring Road, Guindy Industrial Estate So, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. [Pan: Aadcm-5547-J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate Shri V. Justin, Cit & Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit 08.05.2025 21.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per George George K: These Four Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Four Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (All Dated 21.08.2024) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called 'The Act'). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21. -2-

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)

further submitted that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the goodwill is an intangible asset within the meaning of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and this fact has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smifs Securities ... goodwill is an intangible asset in nature of any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, which is eligible for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. The Id. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued that the CIT(A) erroneously upheld the addition in view

Adp India Private Limited, Chennai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 2672/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita Nos.: 2670, 2671, 2672 & 2698/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Adp India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Thamarai Tech Park, 6Th Floor, Vs. Income Tax, Sp Plot No. 16 To 20 & 20A, Thiru Vi Ka Corporate Circle 1(1), Industrial Estate, Inner Ring Road, Chennai. Guindy Industrial Estate So, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. [Pan: Aadcm-5547-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Justin, Cit & Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.05.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per George George K: These Four Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Four Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (All Dated 21.08.2024) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21. Ita Nos.2670 To 2672 & 2698/Chny/2024

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bagmar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, CIT &
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)

further submitted that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the goodwill is an intangible asset within the meaning of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and this fact has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smifs Securities ... goodwill is an intangible asset in nature of any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, which is eligible for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. The ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued that the CIT(A) erroneously upheld the addition in view

Adp India Private Limited, Chennai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre

ITA 2671/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपीलसं/Ita Nos.: 2670, 2671, 2672 & 2698/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Adp India Private Limited, Thamarai Tech Park, 6Th Floor, Sp Plot No. 16 To 20 & 20A, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Inner Ring Road, Guindy Industrial Estate So, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. [Pan: Aadcm-5547-J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate Shri V. Justin, Cit & Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit 08.05.2025 21.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per George George K: These Four Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Four Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (All Dated 21.08.2024) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called 'The Act'). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21. -2-

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)

further submitted that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the goodwill is an intangible asset within the meaning of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and this fact has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smifs Securities ... goodwill is an intangible asset in nature of any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, which is eligible for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. The Id. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued that the CIT(A) erroneously upheld the addition in view

Adp India Private Limited, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 2670/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita Nos.: 2670, 2671, 2672 & 2698/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Adp India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Thamarai Tech Park, 6Th Floor, Vs. Income Tax, Sp Plot No. 16 To 20 & 20A, Thiru Vi Ka Corporate Circle 1(1), Industrial Estate, Inner Ring Road, Chennai. Guindy Industrial Estate So, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. [Pan: Aadcm-5547-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Justin, Cit & Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.05.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per George George K: These Four Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Four Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (All Dated 21.08.2024) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21. Ita Nos.2670 To 2672 & 2698/Chny/2024

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bagmar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, CIT &
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)

further submitted that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the goodwill is an intangible asset within the meaning of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and this fact has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smifs Securities ... goodwill is an intangible asset in nature of any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, which is eligible for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. The ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued that the CIT(A) erroneously upheld the addition in view

ACIT 6(3), Mumbai vs. Grasim Industires Ltd, Mumbai

In the result Revenue's appeal is dismissed

ITA 6758/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri N.K. Billaiya, Am

Section 36(1)(va)

intensity of use, etc., the more disaggregated has to be the record-keeping. Moreover, the practice of granting the terminal allowance as per section 32(1)(iii) or taxing the balancing charge as per section 41(2) of the Income-tax Act necessitate the keeping of records of depreciation already ... that the Legislature has also deleted the provision for allowing terminal depreciation in respect of each asset, which was previously allowable under section 32(1) (iii) and also taxing of balancing charge under section 41(2) in the year of sale. Instead of these two provisions, now whatever

M/S G.D. Tambi & Sons, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Jaipur

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 177/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 24

Appeals). The view of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding admissibility of the deduction on account of written off of certain assets, under Section 32(1)(iii) of the Act is wholly erroneous. The Tribunal has not recorded a finding that the explanation furnished by the assessee in respect

M/S G.D. Tambi & Sons, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Jaipur

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 176/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: moving towards the facts of the case we would like to mention that the assessee has assailed the appeal for assessment year 2015-16 in

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 24

Appeals). The view of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding admissibility of the deduction on account of written off of certain assets, under Section 32(1)(iii) of the Act is wholly erroneous. The Tribunal has not recorded a finding that the explanation furnished by the assessee in respect

Kisan, Nizamabad vs. ACIT., Circle-1, Nizamabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 652/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, SR-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)

आआआआ आआआआआआ आआआआआआ, आआआआआआआआ आआआ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO

ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad vs. Eenadu Television Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 648/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri V. Siva Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Rs.37,79,15,242/- and on which the appellant company has claimed depreciation @ 25% applicable to an “Intangible Asset” as defined under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and debited an amount of Rs.9,44,78,811/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed depreciation on non-compete fee on the ground ... that the appellant company has failed to prove how the said claim is in accordance with section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and eligible for claiming depreciation @ 25% applicable to an intangible asset. The Assessing Officer had discussed the issue at length in light of definition of non-compete

Eenadu Television Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

ITA 563/HYD/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 May 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri V. Siva Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Rs.37,79,15,242/- and on which the appellant company has claimed depreciation @ 25% applicable to an “Intangible Asset” as defined under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and debited an amount of Rs.9,44,78,811/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed depreciation on non-compete fee on the ground ... that the appellant company has failed to prove how the said claim is in accordance with section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and eligible for claiming depreciation @ 25% applicable to an intangible asset. The Assessing Officer had discussed the issue at length in light of definition of non-compete

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad vs. Eenadu Television Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 665/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri V. Siva Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Rs.37,79,15,242/- and on which the appellant company has claimed depreciation @ 25% applicable to an “Intangible Asset” as defined under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and debited an amount of Rs.9,44,78,811/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed depreciation on non-compete fee on the ground ... that the appellant company has failed to prove how the said claim is in accordance with section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and eligible for claiming depreciation @ 25% applicable to an intangible asset. The Assessing Officer had discussed the issue at length in light of definition of non-compete

ACIT, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad vs. Eenadu Television Private Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 654/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri V. Siva Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Rs.37,79,15,242/- and on which the appellant company has claimed depreciation @ 25% applicable to an "Intangible Asset" as defined under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and debited an amount of Rs.9,44,78,811/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed depreciation on non-compete fee on the ground ... that the appellant company has failed to prove how the said claim is in accordance with section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and eligible for claiming depreciation @ 25% applicable to an intangible asset. The Assessing Officer had discussed the issue at length in light of definition of non-compete