“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)

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bengaluru vs. Coffee Day Enterprises Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, all the COs by assessee in CO

ITA 783/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S, Praveena, D.R

Section 1Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 234B(3)Section 234D

23/Bang/2024 M/s. Coffee Day Global Limited, Bangalore Page 19 of 26 be allowed. It would be relevant to reproduce the relevant provision i.e. section 32(1) (iia) of the Act: “32(1)(iia) In the case of any new machinery or plant (other than ships and aircraft), which has been

DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru, Bangalore vs. Coffee Day Enterprises, Bengaluru

In the result, all the COs by assessee in CO

ITA 782/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S, Praveena, D.R

Section 1Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 234B(3)Section 234D

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru vs. Coffee Day Enterprises Limited, Bengaluru

ITA 781/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Sri C. Ramesh, A.R

Section 1Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 234B(3)Section 234D

ITA Nos.780 to 785/Bang/2024 & CO Nos.15 to 18/Bang/2024 M/s. Coffee Day Enterprises Ltd., Bangalore ITA Nos.786 to 791/Bang/2024 & CO Nos.19

Hospira Healthcare India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

ITA 469/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.469/Chny/2017 िनधा<रण वष< /Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Hospira Healthcare India The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax, Sri-Nivas, New No.86 (Old No.89), Corporate Circle-2(2), Gn Chetty Road, T Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan: Aaabco 2190F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Sriram Seshadri, C.A Jkथ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.07.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Jagadish, A.M : Aforesaid Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed By The Dcit, Corporate Circle-2(2), Chennai U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012-13, In Pursuance Of The Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel, Bengalore (Hereinafter ‘Drp’) Vide Directions Dated 09.11.2016. :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, C.A JKFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT

Section 143(3)

approvals, dossiers, know-how and other intangibles associated with developed products) and IP R&D are depreciable intangible assets for the purposes of section 32(1) (i1) cannot be accepted. All these rights are such, which cannot be independently traded or sold to the world at large. The agreement

Ram Ratan Jangir, Amer vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -7(2), Jaipur

In the result ground no. 1 raised by the

ITA 550/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Anoop Bhatiya, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

purposes of the business or profession." Thus the aforesaid section 38(2) under which disallowance can be made refers to deduction available section 32(1) (ii) only for making the proportionate disallowance. Now section 32(1)(ii) is quoted below : " 32 (1) ( ii) In respect of depreciation of – (ii) know ... abundantly clear that the proportionate disallowance of depreciation for partial use of assets can be made only u/s 38(2) read with section 32(1)(ii). In other words, disallowance of 17 Ram Ratan Jangir vs. ITO depreciation can be made only in respect of intangible assets, whereas building, plant

M/S. Sjs Enterprises Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 973/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri. Rony Anthony, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 37Section 37(1)

above the Learned Assessing Officer ("Ld. AO") ought to have appreciated that non-compete fee is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Each of the above ground of appeal is independent and without prejudice to the other grounds of appeal preferred

DCIT Corporate Circle 1 (2), Chennai vs. M/S Consolidated Construction Consortium Ltd, Chennai

In the result, aforesaid grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2799/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2799/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 V. The Dcit, M/S. Consolidated Corporate Circle-1(2), Construction Chennai. Consortium Ltd., No.3, Ii Link Street, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. [Pan: Aaacc 4214 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A. Sasikumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate

Section 10Section 37(1)Section 40A(2)(b)

arises as to whether the additional depreciation of 20% on plant and machinery used for production of ready mix concrete under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act could have been disallowed when the assessee was manufacturing ready mix concrete for the purpose of sale apart from use in construction

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Gujarat Insecticides Limited, Ankleshwar

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1035/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Asstt.Commissioner Of Gujarat Insecticides Limited Income Tax Vs Plot No.805/806, Gidc Estate Circle-2(1)(1) Ankleshwar Vadodara Bharuch – 393 002 Pan: Aaacg 8436 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) … "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Arti Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25/06/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)”) Dated 19/10/2023, Arising Out Of An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”) Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. Facts Of The Case: The Acit Vs. Gujarat Insecticides Ltd. Asst. Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Ms. Arti Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 31Section 32(1)(ia)

additional depreciation in respect of machinery acquired and installed in the last year without appreciating the fact that relevant proviso to section 32(1)(ia) of the Act was brought by Finance Act, 2015 and applicable for A.Y 2016-17 onwards? 4, The appellant craves leaves ot add, modify, amend ... During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that the Finance Act, 2015 made clarification amendment by providing 2nd proviso to section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. 12.2. The AO, not being satisfied with the claim of assessee, disallowed the claim of additional depreciation stating that the relevant

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Astrotech Steels Private Limited, Chennai

The appeal stand dismissed in terms of our above order

ITA 1150/CHNY/2023[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1150/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dcit M/S Astrotech Steels Private Limited बनाम/ Corporate Circle-1(1) 19, Ii Floor, Right Wing, Ghatala Towers, Chennai. Avenue Road, Nungambakkam Vs. Chennai-34. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aakca-0128-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar (Jcit)- Ld. Sr. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate) -Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 27-06-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT)- Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate) -Ld. AR

Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 154

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

Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd (Since Amalgamated With Grasim Industries Limited), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (Ltu) 1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5848/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 10BSection 115JSection 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 37Section 40Section 43BSection 801A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “kK” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A

Parisons Foods Private Ltd, Calicut vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Kozhikode

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

ITA 229/COCH/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Jun 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.(Through Virtual Hearing) Parisons Foods Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle - 1(1) 6/1183, Kunhipari Buildins Kozhikode Calicut 673032 Vs. Pan – Aaccp2898J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Surendranath Rao, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ilaiyaraja, K.S., Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.06.2024 O R D E R Per: Soundararajan K., J.M. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Challenges The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Cit(A)) Dated 01.02.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2005-06. 2. The Assessee Is In The Business Of Refining & Sale Of Crude Edible Oil & Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.10.2005 & The Assessment Was Completed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act By Accepting The Returns. Subsequently The Cit Invoked His Suo Moto Revision Powers Under Section 263 Of The Act To Disallow The Additional Depreciation Claimed U/S 32(1)(Iia) Of The Act & Directed The Ao To Complete The Assessment De Novo By Considering The Claim Of Additional Depreciation Of 15%. Thereafter The Ld. Ao

For Appellant: Shri Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ilaiyaraja, K.S., Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 32(1)(iia)

product has not gone up it does not mean that the appellant is not eligible for additional depreciation. The only requirement as per section 32(1)(iia) was that it achieves the substantial expansion by way of increase in installed capacity by not less than ten percent. The increase

Buccs Ltd. and Nbc and Jv, Buldhana vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 67/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalkFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Singhai

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 32(1)(ii)

construction of infrastructural facilities like roads/highways on Build-Operate- Transfer (BOT) basis with right to collect toll is entitled for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act or the same can be amortized by treating it as an allowable business expenditure under the relevant provisions

Technical Associates Limited, Lucknow vs. DCIT, Range-3, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 228/LKW/2023[AY 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri G. D. Padamahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2015-16 Technical Associates Limited V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income 8Th Km, Faizabad Road Tax Vijaypur, Gomti Nagar Range 6 Lucknow Lucknow Pan:Aabct7365F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Santhosh Kumar Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 25 06 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25 06 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Santhosh KumarFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R

Section 32(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)

total turnover of Rs.172,62,86,685/-. According to the Assessing Officer, in the computation of income, the assessee had claimed depreciation under section 32(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at Rs.40,016,103/- (Rs.1,01,82,132 + Rs.2,95,30,939 + Rs.3,03,032). The assessee ... partly allowed the appeal of the assessee, confirming the addition of Rs.3,03,032/- being the alleged deduction claimed by the assessee under section 32(1)(iii) of the Act and also confirming the addition on account of contribution received from the employees of Rs.1,984/- out of the total

Srk Dev Build Pvt Ltd., Indore vs. DCIT/ACIT 5(1), Indore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 471/IND/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2016-17 Srk Dev Build Pvt. Ltd, Dcit/Acit-5(1) 18/2, Lasudia Mori, Indore बनाम/ A.B. Road, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaqcs3387P Assessee By Shri Pranay Goyal & S.N. Goyal, Cas Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.06.2024

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 32Section 32(1)Section 37Section 37(1)Section 40

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर "ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO

Kurukshetra Expressway Pvt Ltd, Rewari vs. DCIT Circle, Rewari

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 9544/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarasstt. Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anu Krishna Aggarwal

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

project. Learned CIT(A) and Learned AO erred in not allowing the claim of depreciation is not in tandem with section 32(1)(ii) and the reliance on circular no. 9/2014 is wrongly placed. 12. Learned representative for appellant/assessee submitted that the "Right to collect toll" is a business/commercial right ... terms of section 32(1)(ii) and depreciation @25% is allowable on the same. The appellant entered into a Concession Agreement ('the Agreement') with NHAI on 13.07.2010 for development, operation, management, and maintenance of the Rohtak Bawal section of NH-71 [including 4-laning the highway) on Design, Build, Finance

Om Kothari Foundation, Jaipur, Rajasthan vs. ITO, (Exemption) Ward-1, Jaipur, Rajasthan

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 57/JPR/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anish Maheshwari, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl.CIT

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 164(2)

32, i.e., deprecation are, therefore, applicable in case of income earned under the head 'profit and gains of business or profession'. Depreciation under section 32(1) is allowable in respect of both tangible and intangible assets which are 33 OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION VS ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD -1 , JAIPUR owned wholly ... statutory provision under sections 11, 12 and 13 under which income of a charitable or religious institution is computed, allowance of depreciation under section 32(1) would mean double deduction, which is not permissible in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Escorts

Roots Industries India Private Limited, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle (1), Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 46/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.46/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. M/S.Roots Industries India Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner – R.K.G. Industrial Estate, Of Income Tax, Ganapathy, Corporate Circle-(1), Coimbatore-641 006. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aabcr 0314 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Nahar, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 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

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl. CIT - 10 (1), Mumbai

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6025/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Bleand

Section 42(1)(a)Section 80Section 80I

plant for the said purpose. The same was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 45. Before us, counsel referring to the provisions of section 32(1)(iia) of the Act pointed that any new plant and machinery which has been acquired and installed after 31.03.2005 by an assessee engaged ... appellants case new plant and machinery is acquired and installed after 31.03.2005, therefore the assessee is entitled to additional depreciation as per section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. Page No. 27 ITA NO. 6025 & 5979/MUM/2016 (A. Y: 2011-12) CO NO. 31/MUM/2018 M/s. Indian Oil Corporation

DCIT - 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Indian Oil Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5979/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Bleand

Section 42(1)(a)Section 80Section 80I

National Dairy Development Board, Anand vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Anand Circle, Anand

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2994/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Shah & Ms. Aparna Parlekr A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT DR

Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(xii)

does not get the benefit of depreciation in the case of finance lease or hire purchase lease agreement. As per the provisions of section 32(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the depreciation can be claimed in respect of the assets which are (i) owned by the assessee ... lessee, and not by the lessor (assessee), the assessee was not entitled to claim depreciation in accordance with the provision of section 32(1) of the Act. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, to amend or alter the above grounds as may be deemed necessary.” ITA Nos.2004/Ahd/2014, 1873/Ahd/2014, 2994/Ahd/2016