← 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)

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

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

ITA 2954/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

National Dairy Development Board, Anand vs. The ACIT., Anand Circle, Anand

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

ITA 2004/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2024AY 2010-11

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

The ACIT, Anand Circle, Anand vs. National Dairy Development Board, Anand

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

ITA 1873/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: PendingITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2024AY 2010-11

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

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax 1(3)1, Aayakar Bhawan vs. Grindwell Norton Limited, Leela Business Park Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are allowed, in aforesaid terms

ITA 785/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of additional depreciation claimed under section 32(1)(iia) without appreciating that the amendment vide Finance Act, 2015 is effective for A.Y. 2016-17 and thus not applicable for the instant ... Assessing Officer. 4. In respect of Ground No. 2 relating to deletion of disallowance of additional depreciation claimed under section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein referred to ‘the Act’), the learned DR submitted that assessee had claimed additional depreciation on plant and machinery purchased after

Vodafone India Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2834/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2024AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri P.J. PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri T. Sankar
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 234DSection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "I" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Vodafone India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 8(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 884/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2024AY 2011-12
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 234DSection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "I" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

DCIT 8(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Vodafone Idea Limited (Earlier Known As Vodafone India Limited Which Now Stands Merged With Idea Cellular Limited (Icl) and Consequently Known As Vodafone Idea Limited), Mumbai

ITA 1919/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2024AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri P.J. PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri T. Sankar
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 234DSection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "I" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Primetals Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2017-18

ITA 372/KOL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 May 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 371 & 372/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Primetals Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata 5Th Floor, Tower-C Vs Dlf, It Park-I 08 Majore Arterial Road New Town Kolkata - 700156 [Pan : Aaecv9657M] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajoy Vora, Sr. Advocate & Pooja Saraf, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Orders Framed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C & 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 1(1), Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Ao”) Even Dt. 29/04/2022, Passed In Pursuance Of The Directions Of The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel -2, New Delhi, Dt. 18/02/2022 For Assessment Year 2017-18 & Dt. 04/03/2022 For Assessment Year 2018-19, Passed U/S 144C(5) Of The Act. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18:- “Ground 1:

For Appellant: Shri Ajoy Vora, Sr. Advocate and Pooja Saraf, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 156Section 32(1)Section 92C

failed to appreciate that the said claim of depreciation on goodwill, being an intangible asset within the meaning of Explanation 3(b) to section 32(1) of the Act, is allowable in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT, Kolkata v. Smifs Securities ... failed to appreciate that the said claim of depreciation on goodwill, being an intangible asset within the meaning of Explanation 3(b) to section 32(1) of the Act, is allowable in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT, Kolkata v. Smifs Securities

Primetals Technologies India Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2017-18

ITA 371/KOL/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 May 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 371 & 372/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Primetals Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata 5Th Floor, Tower-C Vs Dlf, It Park-I 08 Majore Arterial Road New Town Kolkata - 700156 [Pan : Aaecv9657M] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajoy Vora, Sr. Advocate & Pooja Saraf, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Orders Framed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C & 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 1(1), Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Ao”) Even Dt. 29/04/2022, Passed In Pursuance Of The Directions Of The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel -2, New Delhi, Dt. 18/02/2022 For Assessment Year 2017-18 & Dt. 04/03/2022 For Assessment Year 2018-19, Passed U/S 144C(5) Of The Act. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18:- “Ground 1:

For Appellant: Shri Ajoy Vora, Sr. Advocate and Pooja Saraf, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 156Section 32(1)Section 92C

failed to appreciate that the said claim of depreciation on goodwill, being an intangible asset within the meaning of Explanation 3(b) to section 32(1) of the Act, is allowable in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT, Kolkata v. Smifs Securities ... failed to appreciate that the said claim of depreciation on goodwill, being an intangible asset within the meaning of Explanation 3(b) to section 32(1) of the Act, is allowable in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT, Kolkata v. Smifs Securities

Gati Kintetsu Express Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income, Cirlce 14(1)(2)Tax, Mumbai

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

ITA 2833/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Mr. Madhur Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 250

similar in nature and hence other business or commercial rights of similar in nature and hence eligible for depreciation as per provision of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. for depreciation as per provision of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. for depreciation as per provision of section ... result of the transfer of the business. a result of the transfer of the business. (iv) Further as per 5th th proviso to section 32(1) of the Act in case of proviso to section 32(1) of the Act in case of succession of business, the aggregate deduction

Gati Kintetsu Express Private Limited, Maharashtra and Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai, Maharashtra and Mumbai

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

ITA 2832/MUM/2023[ASS YEAR 2016 - 2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Mr. Madhur Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 250

similar in nature and hence other business or commercial rights of similar in nature and hence eligible for depreciation as per provision of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. for depreciation as per provision of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. for depreciation as per provision of section ... result of the transfer of the business. a result of the transfer of the business. (iv) Further as per 5th th proviso to section 32(1) of the Act in case of proviso to section 32(1) of the Act in case of succession of business, the aggregate deduction

Gati Kintetsu Express Private Limited, Maharashtra and Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai, Maharashtra and Mumbai

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

ITA 2831/MUM/2023[ASS YEAR 2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Mr. Madhur Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 250

similar in nature and hence other business or commercial rights of similar in nature and hence eligible for depreciation as per provision of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. for depreciation as per provision of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. for depreciation as per provision of section ... result of the transfer of the business. a result of the transfer of the business. (iv) Further as per 5th th proviso to section 32(1) of the Act in case of proviso to section 32(1) of the Act in case of succession of business, the aggregate deduction

Gati Kintetsu Express Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

ITA 2830/MUM/2023[ASST YEAR 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Mr. Madhur Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 250

similar in nature and hence other business or commercial rights of similar in nature and hence eligible for depreciation as per provision of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. for depreciation as per provision of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. for depreciation as per provision of section ... result of the transfer of the business. a result of the transfer of the business. (iv) Further as per 5th th proviso to section 32(1) of the Act in case of proviso to section 32(1) of the Act in case of succession of business, the aggregate deduction

Gati Kintetsu Express Pvt. Ltd, Maharashtra and Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai, Maharashtra and Mumbai

ITA 2829/MUM/2023[ASS YEAR 2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Mr. Madhur Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 250

intangible assets or in other business or commercial rights of similar in nature and hence eligible for depreciation as per provision of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. But in the instant case issue is that no intangible assets in the nature of goodwill could be said ... arises in the hand of the assessee as a result of the transfer of the business. (iv) Further as per 5th proviso to section 32(1) of the Act in case of succession of business, the aggregate deduction in respect of depreciation on any tangible or intangible assets allowable

Assistant Commissioner of Income- 4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Keva Fragrances Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2017-

ITA 3482/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh BhatFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 32Section 55

United Breweries Ltd Vs ACIT is not a good law as the Hon’ble High Court has held that 5th proviso to section 32(1) is only Keva Fragrances Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.3480 & 3482/Mum/2023 applicable in the circumstances where the predecessor and successor both claimed depreciation in respect

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Keva Fragrances Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2017-

ITA 3480/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh BhatFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 32Section 55

United Breweries Ltd Vs ACIT is not a good law as the Hon’ble High Court has held that 5th proviso to section 32(1) is only Keva Fragrances Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.3480 & 3482/Mum/2023 applicable in the circumstances where the predecessor and successor both claimed depreciation in respect

Sony Pictues Netorks India P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/Asstt/CIT/ITO, National E-Assessment Centre Delhi (Now Known As National Faceless Assessment Centre), Delhi

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

ITA 925/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble& Shri B.R. Baskaran: A.Y : 2015-16 : A.Y : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala with Shri Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri Salil Mishra – CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE JUSTICE (RETD.) C V BHADANG, HON’BLE PRESIDENT& SHRI

Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT CC 3 (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7685/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble& Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala withFor Respondent: Shri Salil Mishra - CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE JUSTICE (RETD.) C V BHADANG, HON’BLE PRESIDENT& SHRI

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Aaykar Bhawan, Kolhapur, Maharashtra vs. Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sangh Limited, Kolhapur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1236/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1236/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Assistant Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Commissioner Of Income V Dudhutpadak Sangh Limited, Tax, S B-1, Midc, Gokul Shirgaon, Kolhapur. Kolhapur – 416234. Pan: Aaaak0230D Appellant / Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Sandeep P. Sathe – Dr Date Of Hearing 10/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 25/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Emanating From The Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Dated 30.12.2019.The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Cit(A) Erred In Allowing Rs.5,62,220/- On Account Of Fixed Assets On Which Project Subsidy Was Received From National Dairy Development Board As The Department Has Contested The Issue Before The Supreme Court. Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sangh Limited [R]

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

Rs.67,73,998. 4 Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sangh Limited [R] The AO was of the view that the provisions of section 32(1)(iia) are effective from 01/04/2016. He therefore, disallowed the excess claim of additional depreciation, which was added back to the appellant’s total Income

Disney Broadcasting (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1884/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 32(1)Section 43(6)(c)

provisions of section 263 of the Act, the Ld. Pr.CIT was of the firm belief that the sixth proviso to section 32(1) squarely apply on the facts of the amalgamation and therefore, the depreciation claimed on the goodwill and Trade name by the assessee company cannot be allowed ... revenue". 8. We will first address to the issue of claim of depreciation on goodwill and other intangible assets. 9. As per section 32(1) of the Act ‘depreciation’, in the case of any block of assets, is to be computed on the written down value. According to Explanation