← 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)

DCIT., Circle 8(1), Hyderabad vs. East India Petroleum Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1087/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narsimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1087/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. East India Petroleum Income Tax Limited Circle-8(1)(Incharge) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaace4494K] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri H.Srinivasulu, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms.M.Narmada, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/01/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 06/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 19.08.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2018-19. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, Engaged In The Business Of Providing Terminalling Services To Oil Marketing Companies For Storage Of Bulk Liquid Products Including Fuels Like High Speed Diesel, Motor Spirit, Petroleum

For Appellant: Shri H.Srinivasulu, ARFor Respondent: Ms.M.Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 32

from the transferor company in amalgamation, by virtue of order of NCLT as goodwill and depreciation @25% has been claimed in terms of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed depreciation on goodwill on the ground that the conditions prescribed for claiming depreciation u/s 32 ... 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

L & T Technologies Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the additional grounds of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4255/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeel&T Technologies Services Ltd Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income L&T House, N.M. Marg, Tax, Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai Room No.545, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Mumbai Pan: Aaccl4310P Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash (CIT- DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 170Section 2Section 250Section 37Section 90

capital gains is chargeable to tax in the hands of the seller. So, it was held that the 5th Proviso to section 32(1) of the Act would be applied and restrict the claim of depreciation on same set of assets which it received owing to succession. The assessee reiterates ... Explanation 3(b). 5. In the circumstances, we are of the view that 'Goodwill' is an asset under Explanation 3(b) to Section 32(1) of the Act." 11. During the argument, the Ld.AR narrated the fact that the previous yearrelevant to assessment year 2014-15 the assessee had accounted

DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Ntt Global Data Centers Cloud Infrastructure India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4102/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Br Baskaranshri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Tarang Mehta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H. Pande, Sr. DR
Section 250

assessee for a higher rate of depreciation, the import of the same term “purposes of business”, used 10 in the second proviso to Section 32(1) of the Act gains significance. We are of the view that the interpretation of these words would not be any different from that which ... ascribed to them earlier, under Section 32 (1) of the Act. Therefore, the assessee fulfills even the requirements for a claim of a higher rate of depreciation, and hence is entitled to the same. 31. In this regard, we endorse the following observations of the Tribunal, which clinch the issue

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CC-3(2), Central Range-3, Mumbai, Air India Building, Nariman Point vs. Aarti Durgs Limited, Sion (E)

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3071/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Nagar & Shri Vipul JainFor Respondent: Dr. K. R. Subash &
Section 139Section 14ASection 2(24)Section 250

purpose of business for a period of less than 180 days, that u/s. 32(1)(iia), read with the second proviso to section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, for the AY. 2007-08, the assessee was granted benefit of 50% of the 20% of the amount of depreciation allowable ... 3068/Mum/2023 A.Y. 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Aarti Drugs Limited, Mumbai "(1) Whether the Tribunal is correct in extending the benefit of section 32(1)(ila) of the Act to the next AY. When the Income tax Act does not provide for such carryover, thereby violating the legal principles

DCIT CC 3(2), Central Range-3, Mumbai, Air India Building, Nariman Point vs. Aarti Durgs Limited, Sion (E)

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3070/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Nagar & Shri Vipul JainFor Respondent: Dr. K. R. Subash &
Section 139Section 14ASection 2(24)Section 250

purpose of business for a period of less than 180 days, that u/s.32(1)(iia), read with the second proviso to section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, for the AY. 2007-08, the assessee was granted benefit of 50% of the 20% of the amount of depreciation allowable. Dispute ... Aarti Drugs Limited, Mumbai "(1) Whether the Tribunal is correct in extending the benefit of section 32(1)(ila) of the Act to the next AY. When the Income tax Act does not provide for such carryover, thereby violating the legal principles of 'casus omissus' which states that the courts

International Hospital Ltd. (Before Amalgamation M/S Escorts Hospital and Research Centre Ltd), New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-8(3), New Delhi

The appeals are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 3390/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Ircon Soma Tollway (P) Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Ltd., B-4/45, Ground Floor, Income Tax, Range-4, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aabci4622C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri VK Aggarwal, AR & Shri HritikFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250(6)Section 263

Further, it is nowhere mentioned in the circular that it will apply from the date when expl. 3 to section 32(1)(ii) was inserted in the Act. Expl. 3 was inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998 w.e.f. 01/04/1999. Accordingly, even if it is presumed for a moment ... entitled to the claim of depreciation thereon. It is also pertinent to mention here that the 'intangible assets' eligible for depreciation in section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, are only those which are owned by the assessee and have been acquired after spending money. In the case

Saiphia Technology Private Limited, Bhopal vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 172/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Indore22 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Guptaassessment Year:2015-16 Saiphia Technology Private Nfac Limited, Delhi 1St Floor Ankit Plaza, बनाम/ Kolar Road, Vs. Near Nayapura Bus Stop, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aancs1814Q Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.01.2025

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40

disallowance of Rs. 32,31,505/- is the outcome of non-acceptance of claim of additional depreciation made by assessee in terms of section 32(1)(iia) before PCIT in revision-proceeding and also before AO in the proceeding of fresh assessment. Ld. AR submitted that identical claim was also

Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC Bengaluru, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 782/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss Padmavathy S.Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income- 204, Raheja Centre, Free Press Tax,Circle 3(4), Mumbai Journal Marg, Nariman Point World Trade Centre 1, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 005 Pan : Aaace30836F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Shekhar GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 41(2)Section 50

actual cost thereof to the assessee as may be prescribed.” A combined reading of the provisions of section 41(2) and section 32(1)(i) makes it clear that provisions of section 41(2) are applicable only to those entities engaged in the business of generation or generation and distribution

Star Paper Mills Limited, Kolkata vs. PCIT - 2, Kolkata

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

ITA 1155/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, Dr
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(3)Section 263Section 32(1)(iia)

depreciable at the rate of 80% and also eligible for additional depreciation at the rate of 20% in consonance with the provisions of Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. The Id. AR submitted before the Id. PCIT that plant and machinery was put to use less than 180 days ... current year. In other words, the assessee again claimed depreciation at the rate of 80% under the normal provision and 20% under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. Therefore, we do not find any anomaly or mistake in the claim of the assessee. Accordingly, the order passed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(2), Delhi, I.P.Estate vs. Bureau Veritas Consumer Products Services(India) Pvt. Ltd., Lajpat Nagar

ITA 3158/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2013-14] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.63/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3157/Chny2017) [Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner Of Dalmiapuram, Income Tax, Circle-1, Tamilnadu-621651 Vs Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan- Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2014-15] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

case of CIT(LTU) Vs. M/s.Rittal India Pvt.Ltd(ITA No.268/2014) viewed that the TRIBUNAL HAS RIGHTLY HELD that additional depreciation allowed under Section 32(1)(aii) of the Act is ONE TIME BENEIFT. The decision supports the contention/stand of the department that additional depreciation cannot be claimed till the exhaustion ... respectively is regarding the decision of Ld. CIT(A) in allowing the appellant’s claim of additional deprecation under section 32(1)(iia). We have noted that the issue for the two years is based on identical facts and hence decision taken qua ITA No.3157 for AY 2013-14 shall

Right Health Platter Pvt. Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-2)2), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 749/CHNY/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.749/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23 V. M/S. Right Health Platter Pvt. Ltd., The Ito, No.63, Dr. Radakrishnan Salai, Corporate Ward-2(2), Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. Chennai. [Pan: Aaicg 1708 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 10BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 32(1)Section 44ASection 80Section 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) (ii-a) of the Act. As per the settled position of law, an assessee claiming exemption has to strictly and literally comply with

Ravi Lochan Singh, Patna vs. ACIT, Circle-5, Patna

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 124/PAT/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 250Section 32Section 32(1)

period of less than 180 days then 50% of the normal depreciation will be allowed as per the provision of section 32(1) of IT Act. Hence, the appellant's contention that the addition was arbitrary found incorrect and after considering the facts and merits of the case, I dismissed

Manju Dudala, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 665/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jan 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

ACIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Hinduja National Power Corporation Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

ITA 235/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.235/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) The Assistant M/S. Hinduja National Power Commissioner Of Income Vs. Corporation Ltd. Tax, Circle 2(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch2426D अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K. A. Sai Prasad, C.A. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr.

For Appellant: Shri K. A. Sai Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 32ASection 92C

investment allowance under section 32AD for ₹358.44 crore was disallowed, citing non-eligibility for manufacturing benefits. Additionally, excess depreciation of ₹271.70 crore under section 32(1)(iia) was disallowed as the assessee was entitled to depreciation only at 20% for assets used for less than 180 days, instead ... were not included. In the absence of specific inclusion of power generating units into the purview of section 32AC, the benefits mentioned in section 32(1)(ii) cannot be extended to power generation companies. Therefore, the case laws relied upon by the assessee, which were rendered in the context

Air India Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 5(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5996/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Smt Renu Jauhri, Am Air India Limited Asst. Cit, Circle 5(1)(1) Block – 4, Vatika One On One, Room No. 568, 5Thfloor, Sector-16, Nh-48, Industrial Estate, Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Gurgaon, Haryana-122 007 Mumbai – 400 020

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia
Section 14A

Shareholders (supra). In any case of the matter, the revised claim by the assessee relates to depreciation. As per Explanation 5 to section 32(1) of the Act, the A.O. has to compute depreciation in terms with the provisions of the Act, rules and in consonance with the rate provided

Chandrashekar Hemanth, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 7(2)(4) Bangalore, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1677/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar E, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69ASection 80

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL

M/S Skyline E Tech, Kochi vs. ACIT Circle 2(2), Kochi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 269/COCH/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Jan 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Radhesh Bhatt, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 32Section 32(1)Section 47

Rs.94,086 was disallowed, as the assessee failed to show ITA Nos.268 & 269/COCH/2023 Page 4 of 9 the applicability of 5th proviso to section 32(1) of the Act. Consequently, assessment order was passed on 26.12.2011 determining total income of assessee at Rs.56,07,477. 6. The assessee preferred appeal ... depreciation is ITA Nos.268 & 269/COCH/2023 Page 6 of 9 claimed only for part of the year in terms of 5th proviso to section 32(1) of the Act. The ld. AO is directed to verify the same and grant depreciation in accordance with law. Accordingly ground no. 4 of assessee

M/S Skyline E Tech, Kochi vs. ACIT Circle 2(2), Kochi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 268/COCH/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Jan 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Radhesh Bhatt, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 32Section 32(1)Section 47

Rs.94,086 was disallowed, as the assessee failed to show ITA Nos.268 & 269/COCH/2023 Page 4 of 9 the applicability of 5th proviso to section 32(1) of the Act. Consequently, assessment order was passed on 26.12.2011 determining total income of assessee at Rs.56,07,477. 6. The assessee preferred appeal ... depreciation is ITA Nos.268 & 269/COCH/2023 Page 6 of 9 claimed only for part of the year in terms of 5th proviso to section 32(1) of the Act. The ld. AO is directed to verify the same and grant depreciation in accordance with law. Accordingly ground no. 4 of assessee

Kamal Clearing and Forwarding Agency Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(3)(3), Mumbai

ITA 1575/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA ( (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vipul ShahFor Respondent: Smt. Kavita P. Kaushik
Section 10Section 11(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263

section 29 provides that income from profits and gains of business shall be computed in accordance with section 30 to section 43C. That, section 32(1) of the Act provides for depreciation in respect of building, plant and machinery owned by the assessee and used for business purposes. It further

Barmer Lignite Mining Co. Ltd., C-Scheme, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, ITA No. 457/JPR/2023 is partly allowed, whereas the ITA

ITA 459/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 250

depreciable asset; therefore, depreciation is not allowable on the same. Further, the acquisition of mining land does not fall in the ambit of section 32(1) (ii) of the Act to qualify as an intangible asset in as much as the rights referred in this provision are that which