← 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)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Lighthouse Learning Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 5433/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 14ASection 250Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)

fact that the issue involved in that case was only whether goodwill is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation within the meaning of section 32(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the issue of valuation of goodwill and allowability of depreciation on goodwill in the light of Explanation ... Section 43(1) and 6th proviso to section 32(1)(ii) of the Act were never discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the value

Bscpl Aurang Tollway Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 612/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay, wherein it was submitted that the appeal for the relevant assessment year was required to be filed within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. However, the

Section 143(3)Section 263

1) of the Act, dated 12.01.2021 and also explained the reasons for claiming depreciation on cost of road as intangible asset as per Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee further submitted that, it has developed a four-lane highway in the State of Chhattisgarh ... thereon. The assessee further submitted that, right to receive toll revenue is in the nature of intangible asset falls within the purview of Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore, the assessee is eligible for depreciation on the said right to receive toll revenue being

Incometax Officer, Chennai vs. Doosan Bobcat Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the CO of assessee is dismissed as not-pressed

ITA 2288/CHNY/2025[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2288/Chny/2025 & C.O No.76/Chny/2025 (Arising In Ita No.2288/Chny/2025) िनधा%रण वष% /Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, Doosan Bobcat Pvt. Ltd., Htc Towers, 6Th Floor, Corporate Ward-2(1), Vs. Chennai. No.41, Gst Road, Guindy Industrial Estate S.O., Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. Pan: Aaccd 6529L

For Respondent: Mr. Praveen.S, JCIT
Section 250Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in allowing the assessee's claim of depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act on the intangible assets of Dealer Network, Vendor Relationship, Customer Database & Relationship and Trained Employee Base, without appreciating that these assets ... fall within the scope of "intangible assets" as defined in Explanation 3(b) to Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assets claimed by the assessee are not identifiable, transferable or enforceable proprietary rights akin to know

Anshul Specialty Molecules Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7503/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokaranshul Speciality Dcit Circle Molecules Private 1(1)(1), Mumbai Limited Vs. Aayakar Bhawani, Flexcel Park, „C‟ Wing, S.V. Mumbai-400 020 Road, Nr. 24 Karat Multiplex, Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai- 400102 Pan/Gir No. Aabca4003H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri H. N. Motiwala, Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 22.01.2026

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 270ASection 32(1)Section 32(1)(ii)

over the value of assets and liabilities taken over. The assessee claimed depreciation at 12.5%, amounting to Rs. 1,22,44,409/-, under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. The Assessing Officer examined the claim of depreciation on goodwill and issued notices under section 142(1) calling upon ... Bench of the ITAT in United Breweries Ltd. vs. CIT (ITA Nos. 722, 801 & 1065/Bang/2014 dated 30.09.2016) and invoking the 5th proviso to section 32(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer held that depreciation on such goodwill was not allowable. 5. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer disallowed the depreciation

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 1 1, Chennai vs. Fl Smith Private Limited, Kanchipuram

ITA 1763/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1682/Chny/2024 & Co No.71/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.: 1682/Chny/2024) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. Flsmidth Private Limited, Vs. 34Th Egatoor, Flsmidth House, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram – 603 103. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aaacf-4997-N] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/ Cross Objector) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1731 & 1763/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. Flsmidth Private Limited, Vs. 34Th Egatoor, Flsmidth House, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram – 603 103. [Pan: Aaacf-4997-N] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Department By : Shri. P.M.Kathir, Advocate & Shri S.P.Chidambaram, Advocate : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O Rder : 15.12.2025 : 21.01.2026 Per Bench: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai (In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”) Against Orders U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 92Ca(3) R.W.S 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act') For The

For Respondent: Shri. P.M.Kathir, Advocate and
Section 143(3)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'D' BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. R

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Corporate Circle 1-1, Chennai vs. Fl Smidth Private Limited, Kanchipuram

ITA 1731/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1682/Chny/2024 & Co No.71/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.: 1682/Chny/2024) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. Flsmidth Private Limited, Vs. 34Th Egatoor, Flsmidth House, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram – 603 103. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aaacf-4997-N] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/ Cross Objector) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1731 & 1763/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. Flsmidth Private Limited, Vs. 34Th Egatoor, Flsmidth House, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram – 603 103. [Pan: Aaacf-4997-N] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Assessee By Department By : Shri. P.M.Kathir, Advocate & Shri S.P.Chidambaram, Advocate : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O Rder : 15.12.2025 : 21.01.2026 Per Bench: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai (In Short "Ld.Cit(A)") Against Orders U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 92Ca(3) R.W.S 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The 'Act') For The

For Respondent: Shri. P.M.Kathir, Advocate and
Section 143(3)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'डी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'D' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरि, न्यायिक

Assisstant Commisioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 1 1, Chennai vs. Fl Smith Private Limited, Kanchipuram

ITA 1682/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1682/Chny/2024 & Co No.71/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.: 1682/Chny/2024) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. Flsmidth Private Limited, Vs. 34Th Egatoor, Flsmidth House, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram – 603 103. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aaacf-4997-N] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/ Cross Objector) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1731 & 1763/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. Flsmidth Private Limited, Vs. 34Th Egatoor, Flsmidth House, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram – 603 103. [Pan: Aaacf-4997-N] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Assessee By Department By : Shri. P.M.Kathir, Advocate & Shri S.P.Chidambaram, Advocate : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O Rder : 15.12.2025 : 21.01.2026 Per Bench: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai (In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”) Against Orders U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 92Ca(3) R.W.S 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act') For The

For Respondent: Shri. P.M.Kathir, Advocate and
Section 143(3)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'डी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'D' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरि, न्यायिक

Dharamvir Khosla vs. DCIT CC-5, New Delhi

ITA 3976/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Mahesh Kumar, CIT, DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 153CSection 32(1)(ii)

Page | 1 ITA Nos. 3976 & 3977/Del/2025 DharamvirKhosla (AY: 2019-20 & 2020-21) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2 1 1 Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Khyati Chemicals Private Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby allowed

ITA 1856/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 198Section 37(1)Section 40ASection 40A(2)(b)

appellant is allowed and the assessing officer is directed to allow depreciation thereon including additional depreciation in accordance with provisions of section 32(1)(ii) r.w.s. Rule 5(1) and Appendix 1 and section 32(1)(iia) at the time of giving appeal effect.” 3.2. Regarding disallowance u/s. 37(1 ... appellant is allowed and the assessing officer is directed to allow depreciation thereon including additional depreciation in accordance with provisions of section 32(1)(ii) r.w.s. Rule 5(1) and Appendix 1 and section 32(1)(iia) at the time of giving appeal effect.” 4. Aggrieved against the appellate order

ACIT-CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. Lodha Developers Limited (Formerly Known As Macrotech Developers Limited), Mumbai

ITA 4754/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT

ACIT, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Capgemini Technology Services India Limited (Formerly Future Soft Private Limited), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 420/CHNY/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.420/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 V. The Acit, Capgemini Technology Corporate Circle-1(1), Services India Ltd., Block 3, ‘C’ Wing, 4Th Floor, Chennai. Capgemini Knowledge Park, Airoli Knowledge Park, Thane Belapur Road, Navi Mumbai- 400 708. [Pan: Aaacf 0482 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.S.P. ChidambaramFor Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 10ASection 10A(2)Section 10A(5)Section 143(1)

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 ... provision which cannot be compared ITA No.420 /Chny/2024 (AY 2006-07) Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd. :: 12 :: 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

Jewelex India Priavte Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle-14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5285/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarjewelex India Private V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 401 Trade Centre, Bandra 14(1)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Kurla Complex, Bandra Maharishi Karve Marg, (East), Mumbai – 400 098, Mumbai – 400 020, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcj4523H Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, (Sr. DR)
Section 135Section 143(3)Section 37Section 37(1)Section 43(6)(c)Section 80G

relevant provisions of the Act. P a g e | 17 A.Y. 2020-21 Jewelex India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai 10.1 According to the Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, depreciation on any block of asset is allowed at the rate of percentage prescribed under the Rule on the 'written down ... respect of the 'rate of depreciation' but dispute is in respect of the term 'written down value'. In explanation 2 to section 32(1), it is mentioned that for the purpose of sub section, the 'written down value' of the block of the asset shall have the same meaning

Thermo Fisher Scientific India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 7294/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Anmol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 32(1)

written down value of business or commercial rights being the manufacturing contracts as on 1 April 2010 under section 32(1) r.w.s 2(11) of the IT Act. 2.2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned DCIT ... granting depreciation of Rs. 1,81,98,807 on the written down value of supply contracts as on 1 April 2010 under section 32(1) r.w.s 2(11) of the IT Act. 2.3 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned DCIT

Thermo Fisher Scientific India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-

ITA 7393/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Anmol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 32(1)

written down value of business or commercial rights being the manufacturing contracts as on 1 April 2010 under section 32(1) r.w.s 2(11) of the IT Act. 2.2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned DCIT ... written down value of business or commercial rights being the supply contracts as on 1 April 2010 under section 32(1) r.w.s 2(11) of the IT Act. 2.3 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned DCIT

Thermo Fisher Scientific India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 577/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Anmol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 32(1)

written down value of business or commercial rights being the manufacturing contracts as on 1 April 2010 under section 32(1) r.w.s 2(11) of the IT Act. 2.2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned DCIT ... granting depreciation of Rs. 1,81,98,807 on the written down value of supply contracts as on 1 April 2010 under section 32(1) r.w.s 2(11) of the IT Act. 2.3 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned DCIT

Thermo Fisher Scienftific India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-

ITA 1236/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Anmol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 32(1)

written down value of business or commercial rights being the manufacturing contracts as on 1 April 2010 under section 32(1) r.w.s 2(11) of the IT Act. 2.2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned DCIT ... written down value of business or commercial rights being the supply contracts as on 1 April 2010 under section 32(1) r.w.s 2(11) of the IT Act. 2.3 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned DCIT

JCIT Cent. Cir. - 1(4), Mumbai vs. Grasim Industries Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1561/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar / Ms SukanyaFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 153CSection 250Section 43BSection 80I

intensity of use, etc., the more disaggregated has to be the recordkeeping. Moreover, the practice of granting the terminal allowance as per section 32(1)(iii) or taxing the balancing charge as per section 41(2) of the Income-tax Act necessitate the keeping of records of depreciation already availed ... that the Legislature has also deleted the provision for allowing terminal depreciation in respect of each asset, which was previ- ously allowable under section 32(1) (iii) and also taxing of balancing charge under section 41(2) in the year of sale. Instead of these two provisions, now whatever

Grasim Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. - 1(4), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1056/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 153CSection 250Section 43BSection 80I

intensity of use, etc., the more disaggregated has to be the recordkeeping. Moreover, the practice of granting the terminal allowance as per Section 32(1)(iii) or taxing the balancing charge as per Section 41(2) of the Income-tax Act necessitate the keeping of records of depreciation already availed ... that the Legislature has also deleted the provision for allowing terminal depreciation in respect of each asset, which was previ- ously allowable under Section 32(1) (iii) and also taxing of balancing charge under Section 41(2) in the year of sale. Instead of these two provisions, now whatever

Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 26, New Delhi

ITA 5417/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

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

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

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

Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 26, New Delhi

ITA 5416/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

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

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

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