← 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)

DCIT, Intl. Taxation, Circle, Gurgaon vs. Cairn Energy Hydrocarbon Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 7126/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble

Section 115J

order dated 31.01.2023 has held 10 | P a g e ITA Nos.2229 & 2249/Del/2017 & 7028 & 7126/Del/2019 that in view of explanation 5 to section 32(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer has to compute additional depreciation irrespective of the fact whether the assessee has claimed it or not. Accordingly

Cairn Energy Hydrocarbon Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Intl. Taxation, Circle, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 7028/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble

Section 115J

order dated 31.01.2023 has held 10 | P a g e ITA Nos.2229 & 2249/Del/2017 & 7028 & 7126/Del/2019 that in view of explanation 5 to section 32(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer has to compute additional depreciation irrespective of the fact whether the assessee has claimed it or not. Accordingly

DCIT (International Taxation), Gurgaon vs. M/S Carin Energy Hydrocarbon Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2249/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble

Section 115J

order dated 31.01.2023 has held 10 | P a g e ITA Nos.2229 & 2249/Del/2017 & 7028 & 7126/Del/2019 that in view of explanation 5 to section 32(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer has to compute additional depreciation irrespective of the fact whether the assessee has claimed it or not. Accordingly

M/S. Cairn Energy Hydrocarbons Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl. CIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2229/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble

Section 115J

order dated 31.01.2023 has held 10 | P a g e ITA Nos.2229 & 2249/Del/2017 & 7028 & 7126/Del/2019 that in view of explanation 5 to section 32(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer has to compute additional depreciation irrespective of the fact whether the assessee has claimed it or not. Accordingly

Alok Ferro Alloys Ltd., Raipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur

In the result ground no 6 of the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 265/RPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.265/Rpr/2022 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Year: 2012-13 V. M/S.Alok Ferro Alloys Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner- Plot No.458/459, Of Income Tax, Urla Industrial Area, Raipur, Circle-1(1), Raipur. Chhattisgarh-493 221. [Pan: Aacca 0569 P] (अपीलार्थीर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.R.B.Doshi, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr.Dr : सुनवाई ई की तारीखरीख/Date Of Hearing 08.08.2023 घोषणा की तारीखरीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2023

For Respondent: Mr.Satya Prakash Sharma
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40

found to be installed and put to use for the year under consideration therefore additional depreciation is not allowable as per provision of section 32(1)(iia). For ease of reference relevant extract of section 32(1)(iia) of the Act is set out below: "in the case ... supplied by the legislature on new plant and machinery was to restrict additional depreciation on used plant and machinery and accordingly proviso to section 32(1)(iia) excludes depreciation on used plant and machinery. It is an admitted position that during the AY 2012-13 the appellant has incurred expenditure

Shree Cement Limited, Beawar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ajmer

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 152/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT
Section 115JSection 250Section 32(1)(ii)Section 80Section 80I

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 769/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Thermo Fisher Scientific India Dy. Cit-15(3)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 360, Aayakar Vs. 403-404, ‘B’ Wing, Delphi, Bhavan, New Marine Lines, Hiranandani Business Park, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400076. Pan No. Aabct 3207 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Mr. Mudit Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 43(1)

erred in relying on the erstwhile learned DCIT and Hon'ble DR erred in relying on the erstwhile fifth proviso to section 32(1) (ii) [now sixth proviso to section so to section 32(1) (ii) [now sixth proviso to section so to section 32(1) (ii) [now sixth proviso ... section 32(1) (ii)I read with Explanation 1 to section 43(6) of the IT Act 32(1) (ii)I read with Explanation 1 to section 43(6) of the IT Act 32(1) (ii)I read with Explanation 1 to section

ITO(E), Ward- 2(2), New Delhi vs. Sharda Institute of Indian Management Research Foundation Trust, New Delhi

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

ITA 5717/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usi.T.A. No. 5717/Del/2017 (A.Y 2012-13)

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(6)Section 32Section 32(1)

1 ITO Vs. Sri Sharda Institute of Indian Management Research Foundation Trust IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH

Wns Global Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Comm. of Income Tax -14(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2451/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234CSection 43BSection 92C

business which it sold to the assessee. Accordingly it was submitted that the same would fall within the definition of intangible assets under section 32(1)(ii) i.e. "business of commercial rights of similar nature". The assessee relied on the following decisions in this regard – (i) Areva ... contention of the assessee that the customer contracts and non-compete fee falls within the definition of 'intangible assets’ as enumerated in section 32(1)(ii) and therefore, disallowed the depreciation on the same. The DRP gave relief to the assessee with respect to the depreciation on customer contract with

Wns Global Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Comm. of Income Tax-14(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2450/MUM/2022[208-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2023

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234CSection 43BSection 92C

business which it sold to the assessee. Accordingly it was submitted that the same would fall within the definition of intangible assets under section 32(1)(ii) i.e. "business of commercial rights of similar nature". The assessee relied on the following decisions in this regard – (i) Areva ... contention of the assessee that the customer contracts and non-compete fee falls within the definition of 'intangible assets’ as enumerated in section 32(1)(ii) and therefore, disallowed the depreciation on the same. The DRP gave relief to the assessee with respect to the depreciation on customer contract with

DCIT, Circle- 25(1), New Delhi vs. Telecommunication Consultants India Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3801/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 3801/Del/2018, A.Y. 2013-14 Dcit, Vs. M/S.Telecommunication Circle-25(1), Consultants India Ltd. New Delhi 106, Plot No. 4, Vishwadeep Tower, District Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058 Pan : Aaact0061H Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 32

therefore, the expenditure incurred by such date should be the value of intangible asset which can alone be considered for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. We are afraid, we cannot accept the above argument of the learned Senior Standing Counsel. When the C.A. confers a right ... enduring nature for the assessee, it is necessary now to examine whether such intangible asset comes within the scope and ambit of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. For this purpose, it is necessary to look into the said provision which is reproduced hereunder for the sake of convenience

Viney Corporation Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1409/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M.Balaganesh[Assessment Year : 2015-16] Viney Corporation Ltd., Vs Acit, E-872, 1St Floor, Saraswati Vihar, Circle-26(2), Pitampura, New Delhi-110034. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacv0446L Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri R.K.Kapoor, Ca Respondent By Ms. Swati Joshi, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 30.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.07.2023

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 32(1)(iia)

treated to have been installed in the office premises, which according to the learned DRP gets covered in the exception as contained in section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act. It is respectfully submitted that once it has been accepted that the solar power plant has been installed ... block of assets, such percentage on the written down value thereof as may be prescribed 12.12 As per the provision of section 32(1) of the Act, the assessee can claim depreciation on the assets owned and used for the business of the assessee. It is evident beyond doubt

B.C. Bhuyan Construction Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle- 1(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 356/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Girish Agrawalwalassessment Year : 2014-15 B.C.Bhuyan Construction Pvt B.C.Bhuyan Construction Pvt Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle Dcit, Corporate Circle - Ltd., Plot No.90, Palasuni, Ltd., Plot No.90, Palasuni, 1(1), Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aadcb 3304 N (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.C.Sethi, Adv Revenue By Revenue By : Shri Saroj Kumar Mahapatra, Saroj Kumar Mahapatra, Pr. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/07 7/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/0 /07/2023

For Appellant: Shri P.C.SethiFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Mahapatra
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

interpretative process of enquiry. One has to determine whether each item of heterogeneous material comes under the definition of Plant mentioned in section 32 (1) or not. Then, if it is a plant one has to go to proviso to see whether any item of such Plant utilized ... notice, in which question arose as to whether individual bottles can be regarded as plant for the purpose of the first proviso to section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and this Court held that each bottle can be regarded as a plant and the assessee is entitled to claim

The ACIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3854/MUM/2006[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2023AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43B

intensity of use, etc., the more disaggregated has to be the record-keeping. 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 ... 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

M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir - 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3517/MUM/2006[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2023AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43B

intensity of use, etc., the more disaggregated has to be the record-keeping. 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 ... 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

Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-4(1), Raipur

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

ITA 81/RPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.81/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd. Executive Director (Fin.), Csptcl, Second Floor, Sldc Building, Cseb Office Campus, Danginiya Raipur-492 013 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5773E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

examine the approach of the assessee while making the claim of depreciation. In this context, we may refer to the provisions of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act which provides for allowance and rate of depreciation. It has been pointed out that as per section 32(1 ... hands of the assessee will be the value on which depreciation is to be allowed as per the rates prescribed in section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 10.09 In view of the above discussion, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to allow

Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Limited, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Raipur

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

ITA 143/RPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.81/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd. Executive Director (Fin.), Csptcl, Second Floor, Sldc Building, Cseb Office Campus, Danginiya Raipur-492 013 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5773E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

examine the approach of the assessee while making the claim of depreciation. In this context, we may refer to the provisions of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act which provides for allowance and rate of depreciation. It has been pointed out that as per section 32(1 ... hands of the assessee will be the value on which depreciation is to be allowed as per the rates prescribed in section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 10.09 In view of the above discussion, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to allow

DCIT Cir. 4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Morgan Stanley India Co. Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and ground of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2720/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2008-09
Section 32(1)Section 40Section 40A(2)Section 92Section 92CSection 92C(2)

various grounds of appeal the Revenue has challenged the following issues:- GROUND GROUND/ISSUE NO. 1. Depreciation on NSE membership card under section 32(1) of the Act. 2. Disallowance of club membership fees of Rs. 24,000 paid by assessee 3. Disallowance of remuneration paid to Mr. Ashith Kampani ... entitled to depreciation on BSE membership card, as the said right of membership is a licence or akin to licence in terms of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. In the present case, the claim of the assessee was denied by placing reliance upon the decision

Morgan Stanley India Company P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 4(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and ground of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1714/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2008-09
Section 32(1)Section 40Section 40A(2)Section 92Section 92CSection 92C(2)

various grounds of appeal the Revenue has challenged the following issues:- GROUND GROUND/ISSUE NO. 1. Depreciation on NSE membership card under section 32(1) of the Act. 2. Disallowance of club membership fees of Rs. 24,000 paid by assessee 3. Disallowance of remuneration paid to Mr. Ashith Kampani ... entitled to depreciation on BSE membership card, as the said right of membership is a licence or akin to licence in terms of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. In the present case, the claim of the assessee was denied by placing reliance upon the decision

DCIT 4(3), Mumbai vs. Jm Morgan Stanley Securities P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and ground of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2637/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2003-04
Section 32(1)Section 40Section 40A(2)Section 92Section 92CSection 92C(2)

various grounds of appeal the Revenue has challenged the following issues:- GROUND GROUND/ISSUE NO. 1. Depreciation on NSE membership card under section 32(1) of the Act. 2. Disallowance of club membership fees of Rs. 24,000 paid by assessee 3. Disallowance of remuneration paid to Mr. Ashith Kampani ... entitled to depreciation on BSE membership card, as the said right of membership is a licence or akin to licence in terms of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. In the present case, the claim of the assessee was denied by placing reliance upon the decision