“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)

The ACIT CC-35, Mumbai vs. M/S. Marico Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3152/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2025AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 115JSection 80HSection 80I

held that the amount paid towards non-compete fees cannot be treated as intangible asset and therefore depreciation cannot be allowed under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. However, the AO allowed 5% of the expenses to be claimed as a deduction considering the fact that the agreement ... reason that non-compete fee does not fall within the meaning of intangible asset as given in section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and that the assessee cannot claim depreciation on the same. The AO however allowed 5% of the amount capitalized as a deduction. Therefore, the issue

Jharkhand Road Projects Implementation Co. Ltd, Ranchi vs. DCIT Cent. Circle-1, Ranchi

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 92/RAN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 32Section 32(1)(i)Section 32(1)(ii)

right to set up infrastructure facility and collect revenue being license/business or commercial rights is an intangible asset in terms of provisions of Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. The appellant submitted that it had constructed the road as a part of the concessionaire agreement entered into between

Jharkhand Road Projects Implementation Company Limited, Ranchi vs. DCIT, C.C.-1, Ranchi

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 91/RAN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 32Section 32(1)(i)Section 32(1)(ii)

S S Group P.Ltd, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as above

ITA 7691/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.7691/Del/2018, A.Y. 2015-16 Ita No.8950/Del/2019, A.Y. 2016-17 M/S. S S Group (P) Ltd. Assistant Commissioner Of C/O Rra Taxindia Income Tax, Circle-4(1) D-28, South Extension Part-1 Vs. Income Tax Office, New Delhi-110049 Hsiidc Building, Pan: Aapcs5288Q Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Somil Agarwal, Advocate Shri Deepesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By Ms. Jaya Chaudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 18/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12/03/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am Since Issues Involved In These Appeals Were Identical; Hence, These Cases Were Heard Together. Accordingly, These Appeals Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

Section 234ASection 32(1)Section 40A(3)Section 43(6)(c)

placing emphasis on the definition of written down value under section 43(6)(c) read with the Explanation 2 to Section 32(1) of the Act, held that the actual cost of the goodwill in the hands of the assessee was NIL as there was no goodwill in the books ... goodwill in the books of accounts of amalgamating company; i.e. North Star Apartment Pvt. Ltd. Placing emphasis on the 6th proviso to Section 32(1) of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) further held that the appellant S S Group P. Ltd. assessee could not claim depreciation on the assets

Balaji Udyog, Jalgaon vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Jalgaon

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

ITA 1501/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1501/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Balaji Udyog, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Jalgaon. J-81, Midc Area, Jalgaon- 425003. Pan : Aagfb2522E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vinay Kawadia Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 23.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.05.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1) Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Cit(A). Nfac Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Interest Paid To Partners Amounting To Rs.19,23,457/- U/S 40(B) Of The Act. He Specifically Erred In Law In Recasting The Capital Accounts Of The Partners On Account Of Non-Provision Of Depreciation In Books Of Account. 2) The Ld. Cit(A) Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding Disallowance Of Rs.1,13,286/-Being 10% Of The Various Expenses Debited To Profit & Loss Account.

For Appellant: Shri Vinay KawadiaFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 274Section 32(1)Section 40

provide excess interest on the fictitious capital to the partners. The Assessing Officer therefore in the light of Explanation 5 to section 32(1) of the IT Act held that depreciation is required to be provided in books of accounts & since the assessee failed to do so, therefore ... orders passed by the sub-ordinate authorities and requested to confirm the same. Ld. DR further pointed out that the explanation 5 to section 32(1) of the IT Act has made it compulsory for the assessee to claim depreciation in its books of accounts and accordingly prayed before

Suzuki Motor Gujarat Pvt Ltd, Ahmedabad, Gujarat vs. Principle Commissoner of Income Tax, Ahmedanad-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 998/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR

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

depreciation of Rs.156,00,22,181/- was carried forward to be claimed in assessment year 2018-19 as per the third proviso to section 32(1 )(ii) of the Act. A working of the total depreciation charged during the year under consideration is tabulated as under:- Block of assets Plant ... year under consideration. In this regard, we hold that the aforesaid method of computation provided by the Pr. CIT is not correct as Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act provides that depreciation has to be charged on the written down value of any block of assets

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Surat Road King, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6535/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Malpani, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. D/R

Section 32(1)

Supreme Court in the case Mysore Minerals Ltd. vs. CIT (1999) 239 ITR 775 (SC) has held that term ‘owned’ in Section 32(1) has a wider meaning. Tax benefit on account of depreciation legitimately belongs to one who has invested in the capital asset is utilizing the capital asset

Aruna Alloy Steels Privates Limited, Madurai vs. ACIT, Corp. Circle-1, Madurai, Maduraiq

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2803/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Respondent: Mr.Ashwin D. Gowda

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 156Section 80I

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)(iia) of the Act. As per the settled position of law, an assessee claiming exemption has to strictly and literally comply with the exemption

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

ITA 4385/MUM/2009[2006-07]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2006-07

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 43B

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

Grasim Industries Ltd ( Corporate Finance Division), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 6(3), Mumbai

ITA 3762/MUM/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistry Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kishor Dhule

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 43B

DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Aaykar Bhawan Vejalpur vs. Sabarkantha District Co-Operative Milk Producers Union Limited, Boria, Himatnagar

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1648/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. N. Dsouza, CIT DR & B.P. Srivastava

Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 80P(2)(d)

machinery in preceding year of Rs.8,31,15,592/- without taking into consideration the retrospective applicability of the third proviso to Section 32(1)(ii) with respect to the Assessment Year in question? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... addition in new machinery in preceding year of Rs.46,10,700/-, without taking into consideration the retrospective applicability of the third proviso to Section 32(1)(ii) with respect to the Assessment Year in question. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(1) Ahmedabad, Aaykar Bhawan Vejalpur, Prahlad Nagar vs. Sabarkantha District Co-Operative Milk Poroducers Union Limited, Milk Producers Union

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1589/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. N. Dsouza, CIT DR & B.P. Srivastava

Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 80P(2)(d)

machinery in preceding year of Rs. 8,31,15,592/- without taking into consideration the retrospective applicability of the third proviso to Section 32(1)(ii) with respect to the Assessment Year in question? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... machinery in preceding year of Rs. 46,10,700/-, without taking into consideration the retrospective applicability of the third proviso to Section 32(1)(ii) with respect to the Assessment Year in question. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Aaykar Bhawan Vejalpur vs. Sabarkantha District Co-Operative Milk Producers Union Limited, Milk Producers Union Limited

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1588/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. N. Dsouza, CIT DR & B.P. Srivastava

Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 80P(2)(d)

machinery in preceding year of Rs. 8,31,15,592/- without taking into consideration the retrospective applicability of the third proviso to Section 32(1)(ii) with respect to the Assessment Year in question? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... machinery in preceding year of Rs. 46,10,700/-, without taking into consideration the retrospective applicability of the third proviso to Section 32(1)(ii) with respect to the Assessment Year in question. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Suvino Televideo, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 25(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the above terms

ITA 2099/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 32(2)Section 72Section 72(1)Section 72(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. PADMAVATHY S., ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. RAJ KUMAR

Vodafone Idea Limited (Earlier Known As Vodafone India Ltd. Which Stands Merged With Idea Cellular Ltd. and Consequently Known As Idea Ltd.), Mumbai vs. ACIT - Circle- 5 (3)(2), Mumbai

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 316/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved; Shri Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Date

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 194HSection 32(1)Section 40Section 92C

learned DRP/AO has erred in disallowing the tax depreciation amounting to INR 2,61,29,65,700, claimed by the Appellant under section 32(1) of the Act for the subject AY on the written down value of capital expenditure incurred by the Appellant on acquisition of right ... Tribunal in identical fact pattern for the same assessment year has not only upheld claim of depreciation on the 3G spectrum fees under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act treating the right to use 3G spectrum as an intangible asset, but has also quashed the revisionary proceedings initiated

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

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 6307/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT(DR)

Grasim Industries Ltd. 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 availed ... 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, now whatever

Grasim Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 5925/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-3(4), Mumbai vs. Lubrizol India Pvt Ltd, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 5955/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassistant Commissioner Of Vs Lubrizol India Pvt Ltd Income-Tax-3(4), Mumbai 9/3, Lubrizol India Private Limited- 5Th Room No.559, Floor, Plant, Thane Belapur Road, Turbhe Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate Naka, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai, Thane- Mumbai-400 020 400 705 Pan: Aaacl0126H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Paras Savla & Shri ShreyasFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia (SR DR)

Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 37Section 80G

transportation and 3 CO 288/Mum/2024 Lubrizol India Pvt Ltd industrial market. During the impugned assessment year, the assessee claimed the additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) amount to Rs.2,23,91,990/- which pertained to the plant & machinery put to use for F.Y. 2014-15 for less than ... from October, 2013 to March, 2014 on which depreciation was claimed @15% as per section 32 of the Act. In relation to section 32(1)(iia) of the act, the assessee has claimed depreciation in AY 2014-15 @20% of aforesaid machinery of Rs.15,45,70,133/- which comes

M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-8(1), Ltu-II, Chennai

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

ITA 2379/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.R. VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Mr.Nathala Ravi Babu, CIT

Section 14A

eligible for additional depreciation @ 11 which was eligible for additional depreciation @ 11 which was eligible for additional depreciation @ 20% in terms of Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. Since the new plant 20% in terms of Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. Since the new plant ... terms of Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. Since the new plant &machinery was put to use for less than 180 days in FY 2010 &machinery was put to use for less than 180 days in FY 2010 &machinery was put to use for less than 180 days

Johnson and Johnson Private Limited (As Successor of Nr Jet Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. CIT(Appeals) NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 1756/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Barate, Sr. DR

Section 112Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 234CSection 234DSection 250Section 50

assessee submitted that “Coldarin” trademark was acquired on 16/03/1998 and “Raricap” was acquired on 29/07/1992. Thus, it was submitted that the provisions of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act do not apply to the aforementioned trademarks as the assessee acquired the same before 01/04/1998, i.e. before the provision ... further find that prior to the amendment of the Act by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998, the relevant provisions of section 32(1) of the Act read as follows: - "Depreciation. 32. (1) In respect of depreciation of buildings, machinery, plant or furniture owned, wholly or partly, by the assessee