← 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)

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 372/AHD/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

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

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

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

ITA 369/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

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

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

ITA 368/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

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

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

ITA 367/AHD/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

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

Ntt Global Data Centers & Cloud Infrastructure India Private Limited (Erstwhile Netmagic It Services Private Limited), Mumbai vs. DCIT-10 (3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the issue under consideration is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for statistical purpose

ITA 2784/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blentt Global Data Centers & Cloud V. National E-Assessment Centre Infrastructure India Private Limited {Now Known As National {Erstwhile Netmagic It Services Faceless Appeal Centre} Private Limited} Delhi 7Th Floor, Hiranandani Business Park Sakinaka S.O., Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aaccn2366D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Shri Arpit Doshi & Ms. Payal Mehta Department Represented By : Shri S. Srinivasu

Section 37(1)

assessee for a higher rate of depreciation, the import of the same term “purposes of business”, used 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

DCIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Water Health Inida P.Ltd, Andhra Pradesh

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4912/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Aby T. Varkey (Jm)

Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35D

correct in holding that “Right to operate community water system” is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. We noticed from the record that the registry has sent several notices to the assessee, but most ... right to operate the community water system is an intangible asset of the appellant and the same comes within the purview of section 32(1)(ii) as these rights are business or commercial rights granted to the appellant as per agreement with the Village Panchayat to operate and collect user

Minosha India Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 16(1), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2129/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Delhi06 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 32(1)

SUBMISSIONS AND THEREBY TREATING NON COMPLIANCE BY APPELLANT WHEREBY VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE 2. CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL DEPREICATION ON GOODWILL UNDER SECTION 32(1) OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS 59,76,140 BE ALLOWED.” 2 2. Facts, in brief, are that for A.Y. 2012-13 originally

Paschim Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Pr.CIT-2, Baroda

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 911/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Principal Commissioner Of Paschim Gujarat Vij. Co. Ltd., Income-Tax-2, Off. Nana Mava Main Road, Vs. Vadodara Laxmi Nagar, Rajkot-360004 Pan : Aadcp 1453 C अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02.02.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Vadodara-2 [Herein-After Referred To As “Pcit”] Dated 27.03.2019, In Exercise Of His Revisionary Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- “(1) That On Facts & In Law, The Learned Cit Has Grievously Erred In Assuming Jurisdiction U/S.263 Of The Act, Without Recording A Satisfaction As To How The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. (2) That On Facts & In Law, The Proceedings U/S.263 Are Void As The Original Assessment Order Was Passed U/S.143 (3) Of The Act After Due Inquiry & Application Of Mind / & Is Not Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32(1)(iia)

same was allowed during the assessment proceedings. The assessee company is engaged in the distribution of power. As per section 32(1)(iia) in the case of any new machinery or plant (other than ships and aircraft), which has been acquired and installed after the 31st day of March

M/S Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu)-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 575/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm)

Section 144ASection 32ASection 35Section 37(1)Section 80I

year. Therefore, such proviso being curative in nature must apply retrospectively. 239. An analogy can also be drawn from the second proviso to section 32(1) which restricts the claim of depreciation to 50% in case of assets 26 Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. "acquired during the previous year ... fulfilled only when the plant/machinery is "installed". The language used in section 32AC being similar to the language used in second proviso to section 32(1), we must give the same interpretation. 241. We further note that the issue relating to availability of additional depreciation under section 32(1

The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Ltd., Surat

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

ITA 405/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 32(1)(iia)

facts in confirming that the appellant is not eligible for additional depreciation amounting to Rs.49,52,66,000/- as per section 32(1)(iia) of the IT Act on the flimsy ground that no details were submitted to show that conditions for claiming additional depreciations were satisfied. I.T.A ... bills before the AO, however, it is seen that the assessee is in the business of distribution of power, which is covered under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. There are certain other conditions, which are required to be satisfied for claiming additional depreciation. Additional depreciation is not allowable

The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Ltd., Surat

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

ITA 404/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 32(1)(iia)

facts in confirming that the appellant is not eligible for additional depreciation amounting to Rs.49,52,66,000/- as per section 32(1)(iia) of the IT Act on the flimsy ground that no details were submitted to show that conditions for claiming additional depreciations were satisfied. I.T.A ... bills before the AO, however, it is seen that the assessee is in the business of distribution of power, which is covered under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. There are certain other conditions, which are required to be satisfied for claiming additional depreciation. Additional depreciation is not allowable

Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Limited, Surat vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 331/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 32(1)(iia)

facts in confirming that the appellant is not eligible for additional depreciation amounting to Rs.49,52,66,000/- as per section 32(1)(iia) of the IT Act on the flimsy ground that no details were submitted to show that conditions for claiming additional depreciations were satisfied. I.T.A ... bills before the AO, however, it is seen that the assessee is in the business of distribution of power, which is covered under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. There are certain other conditions, which are required to be satisfied for claiming additional depreciation. Additional depreciation is not allowable

Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Limited, Surat vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 330/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 32(1)(iia)

facts in confirming that the appellant is not eligible for additional depreciation amounting to Rs.49,52,66,000/- as per section 32(1)(iia) of the IT Act on the flimsy ground that no details were submitted to show that conditions for claiming additional depreciations were satisfied. I.T.A ... bills before the AO, however, it is seen that the assessee is in the business of distribution of power, which is covered under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. There are certain other conditions, which are required to be satisfied for claiming additional depreciation. Additional depreciation is not allowable

Roadstar Investment Mangers Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 14 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground No.1 of the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3311/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Roadstar Investment The Assistant Managers Ltd. Commissioner Of Income Plot No.C-22, G Block, Tax, Circle 14(1)(1) Vs. Bkc, Bandra (East), Room No.432, Mumbai – 400 051 Aaykar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Bhupal Rapelli &For Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 80I

depreciation at the rate of 25% treating to right to collect the toll on the road under the category as intangible asset under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Vide Para No.5.3, the Ld. CIT (A) did not admit the same holding that this was not raised ... business' or 'commercial right' be regarded as an "intangible asset" in terms of the Roadstar Investment Managers Ltd.; A.Y. 2014-15 provision of Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The Appellant prays that they had constructed the road and have the right to earn

Padma Rao, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 61(1), Delhi

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

ITA 2759/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri V. K Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 28Section 4Section 56(2)(xi)

firm of Chartered Accountants constructed a building for the purpose of residence for its low paid employees and claimed initial depreciation @ 40% under Section 32(1)(iv) of the Act. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) vide its order dated 15.1.1985 rejected the claim of the assessee-appellant on the ground ... order of the Assessing Officer. On reference the High Court upheld the same” 23. And the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: Section 32(1) of the Act does not help the appellant in any way to construe the word "business" appearing in sub-section 32(1

Icici Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT -2(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 738/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Icici Bank Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax 2(3)(1) Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 5Th Floor, Room No.552, Badra (East), Mumbai-400 051 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Visanji, advFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 263Section 36(1)Section 48

Bank of Rajasthan and Anagram Finance Limited of ₹254,51,40,318/- on consideration of 5th proviso to Section 32(1) of the Act. ix. Addition of ₹39,97,71,317/- of broken period interest paid on purchase of securities held under maturity category holding that such interest

Lupin Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT, Circle-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 1921/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Court rendered in the case of Goetz (India) Ltd. (supra). 7.1 The learned CIT(A) took the view that the Sixth Proviso to section 32(1) of the Act is applicable to the facts of the present case and hence the succeeding company i.e. the assessee herein, will ... asset and it falls in the category of ‘any other business or commercial right of similar nature’ as given in the Explanation to section 32(1) of the Act and therefore it is eligible for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. He also placed reliance

ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vejalpur, Ahmedabad vs. Aculife Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

Accordingly, in light of the above discussion, the Department’s appeal for Assessment Years 2015-16 and 2016-17 are dismissed, and the assessee’s Cross Objections are allowed for the impugned asses...

ITA 790/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Chirag Patel on behalf of Shri HemanshuFor Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43(6)

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. 6. One more aspect needs to be highlighted. In the present case, the Assessing Officer, as a matter of fact, came

ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vejalpur, Ahmedabad vs. Aculife Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

Accordingly, in light of the above discussion, the Department’s appeal for Assessment Years 2015-16 and 2016-17 are dismissed, and the assessee’s Cross Objections are allowed for the impugned asses...

ITA 789/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Chirag Patel on behalf of Shri HemanshuFor Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43(6)

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. 6. One more aspect needs to be highlighted. In the present case, the Assessing Officer, as a matter of fact, came

D.C.I.T., Circle-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Birla Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross-objection of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1964/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........…..........................…..…..... Respondent Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] C.O. 39/Kol/2019 (A/O I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........….....................…..…..... Cross-Objector Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] Vs Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal By The Revenue & The Corresponding Cross Objections By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 30.05.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). First, We Take Up Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.1964/Kol/2019. I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 & C.O. 39/Kol/2019 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 80I

period less than 180 days in that year. In I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 & C.O. 39/Kol/2019 M/s Birla Corporation Ltd view of the 2nd Proviso to section 32(1) of the Act, for the assessment year 2014-15, the assessee claimed only 50% initial depreciation and the remaining 50% was claimed ... year but put to use for a period of less than 180 days in that year. In view of the second proviso to section 32(1) of the Act, for the assessment year 2010-11, the assessee claimed only 50% initial I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 & C.O. 39/Kol/2019 M/s Birla Corporation Ltd depreciation