← 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)

Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 268/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailasian Paints Ltd. Asian Paints House

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Vachashpati Tripathi
Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5934/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Vachashpati Tripathi
Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5363/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Us.

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14A

ASIAN PAINTS LTD. ITA NO.5363/MUM./2017 ITA NO.5934/MUM./2017 ("the Act") by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-55

Supermax Personal Care P. Ltd., Thane vs. Dy CIT -3(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed in above terms

ITA 687/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Gupta & Shri AjinkyaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Ld. DR
Section 250Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 92C

working capital employed by the Assessee vis a vis comparable companies. Addition on account of corporate tax adjustments Disallowance of additional depreciation under section 32(1) (iia) of the Act amounting to INR 3, 43,808/- 10. erred in disallowing 50% of the additional depreciation ... claimed under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act, by holding that such claim of 50% of the additional depreciation is not allowable in the immediately succeeding year to which the asset is put to use for less than 180 days. Supermax Personal Care Pvt. Ltd., 11. erred

Mukesh Trends Lifestyle Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 828/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 828/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18)

For Respondent: Shri Vipul Chavda, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

Legislature to the assessee. It was further held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the term owned as occurring in section 32(1) of the Incometax Act must be assigned a wider meaning. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “It is well-settled that there cannot

Addl CIT 8(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Sanofi India Limited (Formerly Known As M/S. Aventis Pharma Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, the C.O. of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed

ITA 6698/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra (CIT-DR) &
Section 32Section 32(1)

purposes, depreciation is not allowable as per provisions of section 32. This issue has decided against the assessee in the earlier years also. Section 32(1) has laid down condition for claiming depreciation that the assets should have been owned by the person claiming depreciation and it should have been ... appellant company. 1.6 Keeping in view all these facts and circumstances and decision of the Hon'ble Courts and the provisions of section 32(1) which is very clear that for claiming depreciation, the assets should have been used for business purposes. However, in the case of the assessee

Addl CIT RG 8(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Sanofi India Limited (Formerly Known As M/S. Aventis Pharma Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, the C.O. of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed

ITA 7712/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra (CIT-DR) &
Section 32Section 32(1)

purposes, depreciation is not allowable as per provisions of section 32. This issue has decided against the assessee in the earlier years also. Section 32(1) has laid down condition for claiming depreciation that the assets should have been owned by the person claiming depreciation and it should have been ... appellant company. 1.6 Keeping in view all these facts and circumstances and decision of the Hon'ble Courts and the provisions of section 32(1) which is very clear that for claiming depreciation, the assets should have been used for business purposes. However, in the case of the assessee

Sanofi India Ltd Formerly Known As Aventis Pharma Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, the C.O. of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed

ITA 6626/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra (CIT-DR) &
Section 32Section 32(1)

purposes, depreciation is not allowable as per provisions of section 32. This issue has decided against the assessee in the earlier years also. Section 32(1) has laid down condition for claiming depreciation that the assets should have been owned by the person claiming depreciation and it should have been ... appellant company. 1.6 Keeping in view all these facts and circumstances and decision of the Hon'ble Courts and the provisions of section 32(1) which is very clear that for claiming depreciation, the assets should have been used for business purposes. However, in the case of the assessee

Sara Suppliers Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 432/AHD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 432/Ahd/2022 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2016-2017 Sara Suppliers Private Limited, The Asst. Commissioner Of 6, Patel Avenue, Vs. Income Tax, Near Gurudwara S.G Highway, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad-380054. Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT.D.R
Section 32(1)

1. The Ld.CIT(A), has erred in law by agreeing with the Ld.AO’s order in disallowing depreciation under section 32(1) of the Act on goodwill recognised pursuant to amalgamation sanctioned by Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat and also in rejecting precedents including that of Hon’ble Supreme ... Jurisdictional Gujarat High Court and Jurisdictional ITAT, wherein it has been held that goodwill is a depreciation asset under Explanation 3(b) to section 32(1) of the Act. It is therefore prayed that depreciation on goodwill may kindly be granted. 2. The Ld.CIT(A), has erred in facts

Shree Cement Limited, Beawar vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 500/JPR/2023[215-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

For Appellant: Sh. Dilip B Desai(C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H) &
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144B(1)(xvi)Section 80Section 80I

Hence, AO is directed to grant depreciation @25% on such leasehold rights acquired of Rs. 14,93,25,916/- in accordance with section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. The additional ground no. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed.” 61. On being consistent to the findings so recorded ... 1)(ii) of the Act. Hence, AO is directed to grant depreciation @25% on such leasehold rights in accordance with the provision of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Ergo we decide accordingly, and the additional ground no. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed. 62. Ground

Shree Cement Limited, Beawar vs. National Faceless Assessment Assessment Centre, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Ajmer

ITA 497/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024AY 2017-18
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144B(1)(xvi)Section 80Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM

Shree Cement Limited, Beawar vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Deputy Commissionerof Income Tax, Circle -2, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 496/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

For Appellant: Sh. Dilip B Desai(C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H) &
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144B(1)(xvi)Section 80Section 80I

Hence, AO is directed to grant depreciation @25% on such leasehold rights acquired of Rs. 14,93,25,916/- in accordance with section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. The additional ground no. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed.” 61. On being consistent to the findings so recorded ... 1)(ii) of the Act. Hence, AO is directed to grant depreciation @25% on such leasehold rights in accordance with the provision of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Ergo we decide accordingly, and the additional ground no. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed. 62. Ground

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ajmer vs. Shree Cement Ltd, Beawar

ITA 490/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024AY 2016-17
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144B(1)(xvi)Section 80Section 80I

ITA Nos. 489 to 492/JP/2023 ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. 2 These are eight cross appeals filed by the revenue

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ajmer vs. Shree Cement Ltd, Beawar

ITA 489/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Sh. Dilip B Desai(C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H) &
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144B(1)(xvi)Section 80Section 80I

ITA Nos. 489 to 492/JP/2023 ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. 1 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME

Teksystems Global Services Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as directed above

ITA 290/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Ms. Amulya K. ARFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR
Section 32

assessee cannot claim depreciation for assessment year 2017-18. Another plea taken by the learned DR is based on the 6th proviso to section 32(1) of the Act which says that in any assessment year, the aggregate deduction in respect of depreciation of assets allowable to the predecessor ... hands of the seller, depreciation in respect of such assets was allowed and in accordance with the provisions under the 6th proviso to section 32(1) of the Act is a verifiable fact. If such assets are considered for depreciation in accordance with law in the hands of the seller

Kifs International LLP, Ahmedabad vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi Presently With ACIT, Central Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 684/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 682, 683 & 684/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 To 2018-19) Kifs International Llp Acit बनाम/ B-81, Pariseema Complex, Circle-5(2)(1), Vs. C. G. Road, Ellisbridge, Narayan Chambers Ahmedabad 380006 Building, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad [Presently With Acit, Central Circle 1(4), 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Ashrma Road, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaqfk2892L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Assessee By : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.Rs. Revenue By : Shri Ritesh Parmar, Cit. Dr & Shri Rajdeep Singh, Sr.Dr (On 08.11.2023) & Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Cit.Dr (On 30.01.2024) सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 08/11/2023 & 30.01.2024 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 08/02/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Bunch Of Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Dated 14.08.2023 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad (In Short ‘Cit(A)’) Arising Out Of The Orders Dated

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Parmar, CIT. DR & Shri
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 32Section 32(1)Section 43(6)

First Appellate Authority. Hence, the instant appeal before us. 4. According to the appellant disallowing depreciation by the Revenue authority under Section 32(1) of the Act on Goodwill recognized pursuant to the amalgamation sanctioned by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court is not sustainable ... Supreme Court wherein it has been held that Goodwill being not tangible asset is eligible for depreciation under Explanation 3(b) to Section 32(1) of the Act. 5. In support of such, it was contended by the appellant before the authorities below and before us as well that pursuant

Kifs International LLP, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-5(2)(1) Presently With ACIT, Central Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 683/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 682, 683 & 684/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 To 2018-19) Kifs International Llp Acit बनाम/ B-81, Pariseema Complex, Circle-5(2)(1), Vs. C. G. Road, Ellisbridge, Narayan Chambers Ahmedabad 380006 Building, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad [Presently With Acit, Central Circle 1(4), 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Ashrma Road, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaqfk2892L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Assessee By : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.Rs. Revenue By : Shri Ritesh Parmar, Cit. Dr & Shri Rajdeep Singh, Sr.Dr (On 08.11.2023) & Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Cit.Dr (On 30.01.2024) सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 08/11/2023 & 30.01.2024 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 08/02/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Bunch Of Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Dated 14.08.2023 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad (In Short ‘Cit(A)’) Arising Out Of The Orders Dated

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Parmar, CIT. DR & Shri
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 32Section 32(1)Section 43(6)

First Appellate Authority. Hence, the instant appeal before us. 4. According to the appellant disallowing depreciation by the Revenue authority under Section 32(1) of the Act on Goodwill recognized pursuant to the amalgamation sanctioned by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court is not sustainable ... Supreme Court wherein it has been held that Goodwill being not tangible asset is eligible for depreciation under Explanation 3(b) to Section 32(1) of the Act. 5. In support of such, it was contended by the appellant before the authorities below and before us as well that pursuant

Kifs International LLP, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-5(2)(1) Presently With ACIT, Central Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 682/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 682, 683 & 684/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 To 2018-19) Kifs International Llp Acit बनाम/ B-81, Pariseema Complex, Circle-5(2)(1), Vs. C. G. Road, Ellisbridge, Narayan Chambers Ahmedabad 380006 Building, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad [Presently With Acit, Central Circle 1(4), 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Ashrma Road, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaqfk2892L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Assessee By : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.Rs. Revenue By : Shri Ritesh Parmar, Cit. Dr & Shri Rajdeep Singh, Sr.Dr (On 08.11.2023) & Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Cit.Dr (On 30.01.2024) सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 08/11/2023 & 30.01.2024 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 08/02/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Bunch Of Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Dated 14.08.2023 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad (In Short ‘Cit(A)’) Arising Out Of The Orders Dated

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Parmar, CIT. DR & Shri
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 32Section 32(1)Section 43(6)

First Appellate Authority. Hence, the instant appeal before us. 4. According to the appellant disallowing depreciation by the Revenue authority under Section 32(1) of the Act on Goodwill recognized pursuant to the amalgamation sanctioned by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court is not sustainable ... Supreme Court wherein it has been held that Goodwill being not tangible asset is eligible for depreciation under Explanation 3(b) to Section 32(1) of the Act. 5. In support of such, it was contended by the appellant before the authorities below and before us as well that pursuant

Madhya Gujarat Vij Company Limited, Vadodara vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 374/AHD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234Section 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)

depreciation of Rs.53,53,48,484/- merely giving one-line finding that that company is not eligible to claim additional depreciation as per section 32(1)(iia) of the IT Act as it is engaged only in distribution of electricity. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered the legislative intent ... reason that assessee company is not eligible to claim additional depreciation as it is engaged only in distribution of electricity. Further as per section 32(1)(iia), additional depreciation is allowable to the entities who are in the business of generation or generation and distribution of power. I.T.A

Madhya Gujarat Vij Company Limited, Vadodara vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(2), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 373/AHD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234Section 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)

depreciation of Rs.53,53,48,484/- merely giving one-line finding that that company is not eligible to claim additional depreciation as per section 32(1)(iia) of the IT Act as it is engaged only in distribution of electricity. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered the legislative intent ... reason that assessee company is not eligible to claim additional depreciation as it is engaged only in distribution of electricity. Further as per section 32(1)(iia), additional depreciation is allowable to the entities who are in the business of generation or generation and distribution of power. I.T.A