← 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)

M/S Radhika Water & Amusement Park Inds, Bilaspur(Cg) vs. I.T.O. Ward 1(2), Bilaspur(Cg)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 320/BIL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 May 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.320/Rpr/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 M/S. Radhika Water & Amusement Park Industries, Dayalband, Bilaspur (C.G.) Pan : Aaifk7321K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Bilaspur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)(i)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

claim of the Ld. Authorized Representative (for short ‘AR’) for the assessee, that as the assessee per the mandate of “Explanation 5” to Section 32(1) of the Act was entitled for claim of depreciation, whether or not such claim was raised while computing its income, therefore, the same ... have given a thoughtful consideration to the issue, and before proceeding any further, deem it fit to cull out the “Explanation 5” of Section 32(1) of the Act that was made available on the statute vide the Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f. 01.04.2002, which reads as under: “Explanation

Maheshwari Pragati Mandal, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Income Tax Department, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee allowed

ITA 3225/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blemaheshwari Pragati Mandal V. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre 2Nd Floor Maheshwari Bhavan Delhi Girgaon Road, Kalbadevi Mumbai-400002 Pan: Aaatm0226G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)

section 29 provides that income from profits and gains of business shall be computed in accordance with section 30 to section 43C. That section 32(1) of the Act provides for depreciation in respect of building, plant and machinery owned by the assessee and used for business purposes. It further

Kings Infra Ventures Ltd, Thevara vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1 (2), Kochi

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 25/COCH/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Apr 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Sandeep Gosainkings Infra Ventures Ltd. Asstt. Commissioner Of A-1, 1St Floor, Atria Apartment Income Tax, Opp. Gurudwara Temple Vs. Circle - 1(2) Perumanur Road Kochi Thevara, Kochi [Pan:Aaccv3411D] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By: Shri Joseph Markose, Sr. Advocate Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Shri Sandeep Gosain, Judicial

DCIT, Circle-11(1), New Delhi vs. Hanon Climate Systems India P.Ltd (Formerly Known As Visteon Climate Systems Limited India Ltd), New Delhi

Accordingly decided against the Revenue while ground no. 2 is decided in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal of revenue is allowed partly

ITA 5813/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 5813/Del/2018, A.Y. 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 32(1)Section 35

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘C’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SH. N.K.BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA

Harmony Plastics Pvt.Ltd., Udaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Udaiur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 180/JODH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad180/Jodh/2019 (Assessment Year- 2015-16) M/S. Harmony Plastics Pvt Ltd. V The Acit S F-335-339, Bhamashah Industrial Circle-1 Area, Kaladwas, Udaipur Uddaipur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabch 5399 D

Section 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 32(2)(iia)

during the IInd Half of A.Y. 2014-15 on the alleged ground that in terms of clause (iia) of Section 32(1), addl. Depreciation is available in year in which machinery is new and first put to use and not for any succeeding year. Further, carry forward of additional ... have carefully considered the assessment order, appellate submissions and various case laws relied upon by the appellant. The relevant provisions of Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act have also been gone through. The AO disallowed the claim of the appellant for additional depreciation on the ground that the provisions

Srf Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl CIT, New Delhi

In the result, this ground of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 774/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Ussrf Limited Vs. Acit Unitech Crest, Greenwood Range – 9, City Block – C, Sector – 45, Ltu, New Delhi Gurgaon – 122 003 Pan No. Aaacs 0206 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep Dinodia, Shri R. K. Kapoor C.A. Shri Ravi Kumar Revenue By Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit (Dr) Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10/01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Dated 27.09.2016 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-44, New Delhi [For Short, Cit(A)] Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [For Short, 'The Act'] For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under:-

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 92C

remaining additional depreciation shall be allowed in the subsequent year observed as under : “This additional benefit in the form of additional allowance under section 32(1)(iia) is onetime benefit to encourage the industrialization and in view of the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Bajaj Tempo ... been put to use for less than 180 days. 46. The Finance Act, 2015, has amended the law by inserting third proviso to section 32(1)(iia) – applicable w.e.f. 1st April 2016 to allow the claim of additional depreciation for assets put to use for less than 180 days

Bsc C&C Kurali Toll Road Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-5(1), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3141/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Amarjit Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 32(1)(ii)

have no doubt to hold that the assessee is entitled to collect tax being an intangible commercial right under section 32(1)(ii) at the rate as has been prescribed under the relevant rules. Our above view is further supported by the decision of the co-ordinate Pune bench ... terms that the claim of the assessee for depreciation on "licence to collect toll" being an 'intangible asset' falling within the scope of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act is liable to be upheld. The relevant part of findings of the Tribunal for the sake of convenience is reproduced

ACIT (E), Circle- 2(1), New Delhi vs. Nav Nirman Sewa Samiti, Delhi

ITA 6282/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 6282/Del/2017, A.Y. 2014-15 Acit(E), Vs. Nav Nirman Sewa Samiti, Circle-2(1), B N-9, Shalimar Bagh New Delhi (East), Delhi-110088 Pan : Aaaan6370R Appellant Respondent

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘E’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SH. SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANUBHAV

National Textile Corporation Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2043/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 2043/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 National Textile Corporation Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, Core-4, Scope Complex-7, Lodhi Special Range-6, Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn2847D Ita No. 1969/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Addl. Cit, Vs National Textile Corporation Ltd., Special Range-6, Core-4, Scope Complex-7, Lodhi New Delhi Road, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn2847D

For Appellant: Sh. Manoj Kumar Anand, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 32(1)

less than 180 days and hence, depreciation as well as additional depreciation was allowed @ 50% of the allowable amount in accordance with section 32(1)(iia). A concurrent reading of provisions of section 32(1) and 32(1)(iia) of the Act we hold that the assessee is eligible

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. National Textile Corporation Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 1969/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 2043/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 National Textile Corporation Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, Core-4, Scope Complex-7, Lodhi Special Range-6, Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn2847D Ita No. 1969/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Addl. Cit, Vs National Textile Corporation Ltd., Special Range-6, Core-4, Scope Complex-7, Lodhi New Delhi Road, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn2847D

For Appellant: Sh. Manoj Kumar Anand, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 32(1)

less than 180 days and hence, depreciation as well as additional depreciation was allowed @ 50% of the allowable amount in accordance with section 32(1)(iia). A concurrent reading of provisions of section 32(1) and 32(1)(iia) of the Act we hold that the assessee is eligible

Bibhudutta Panda, Bhubaneswar vs. Asst.CIT, Corporate Circle 1(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 81/CTK/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.76 To 81/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-2008 To 2012-2013) Bibhudutta Panda, Vs Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Plot No.73 & 74, Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. :Adapp 6398 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agrawalla/S.K.Hota, ArsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153D

such earlier decision did not reflect the correct position of the law. Thus where the Tribunal by the impugned order had applied section 32(1)(iia ) to the facts involved in the case of the assessee and had found that the assessee was entitled for the additional depreciation claimed under

Bibhudutta Panda, Bhubaneswar vs. Asst.CIT Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 80/CTK/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.76 To 81/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-2008 To 2012-2013) Bibhudutta Panda, Vs Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Plot No.73 & 74, Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. :Adapp 6398 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agrawalla/S.K.Hota, ArsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153D

such earlier decision did not reflect the correct position of the law. Thus where the Tribunal by the impugned order had applied section 32(1)(iia ) to the facts involved in the case of the assessee and had found that the assessee was entitled for the additional depreciation claimed under

Bibhudutta Panda, Bhubaneswar vs. Asst.CIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 79/CTK/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.76 To 81/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-2008 To 2012-2013) Bibhudutta Panda, Vs Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Plot No.73 & 74, Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. :Adapp 6398 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agrawalla/S.K.Hota, ArsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153D

such earlier decision did not reflect the correct position of the law. Thus where the Tribunal by the impugned order had applied section 32(1)(iia ) to the facts involved in the case of the assessee and had found that the assessee was entitled for the additional depreciation claimed under

Bibhudutta Panda, Bhubaneswar vs. Asst.CIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 78/CTK/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.76 To 81/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-2008 To 2012-2013) Bibhudutta Panda, Vs Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Plot No.73 & 74, Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. :Adapp 6398 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agrawalla/S.K.Hota, ArsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153D

such earlier decision did not reflect the correct position of the law. Thus where the Tribunal by the impugned order had applied section 32(1)(iia ) to the facts involved in the case of the assessee and had found that the assessee was entitled for the additional depreciation claimed under

Bibhudutta Panda, Bhubaneswar vs. Asst.CIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 77/CTK/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.76 To 81/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-2008 To 2012-2013) Bibhudutta Panda, Vs Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Plot No.73 & 74, Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. :Adapp 6398 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agrawalla/S.K.Hota, ArsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153D

such earlier decision did not reflect the correct position of the law. Thus where the Tribunal by the impugned order had applied section 32(1)(iia ) to the facts involved in the case of the assessee and had found that the assessee was entitled for the additional depreciation claimed under

Bibhudutta Panda, Bhubaneswar vs. Asst.CIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 76/CTK/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Feb 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.76 To 81/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-2008 To 2012-2013) Bibhudutta Panda, Vs Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Plot No.73 & 74, Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. :Adapp 6398 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agrawalla/S.K.Hota, ArsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153D

such earlier decision did not reflect the correct position of the law. Thus where the Tribunal by the impugned order had applied section 32(1)(iia ) to the facts involved in the case of the assessee and had found that the assessee was entitled for the additional depreciation claimed under

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6278/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6357/Del/2013: Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vs Cairn Energy Hydrocarbon Ltd., C/O. Cairn India Ltd., 3Rd & 4Th Circle-3(2), International Taxation, Floor, Vipul Plaza, Suncity, Sector- New Delhi 54, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccc3279J

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT-DR
Section 40aSection 57Section 80I

allowing claim of additional depreciation amounting to Rs. 10,43,83,712 (Rs. 18,26,71,497-7,82,87,784) under section 32(1 )(iia) of the Act and recomputed the deprecation of Rs 359,20,57,325 after giving effect to Assessment order of AY 12-13 despite ... confirming Ld. AO’s allegation that the claim of additional depreciation was to be mandatorily allowed in terms of Explanation 5 to section 32(1) of the Act, without appreciating that additional depreciation being optional in nature, is not covered within the purview of the said Explanation. 1.2. That

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6277/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6357/Del/2013: Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vs Cairn Energy Hydrocarbon Ltd., C/O. Cairn India Ltd., 3Rd & 4Th Circle-3(2), International Taxation, Floor, Vipul Plaza, Suncity, Sector- New Delhi 54, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccc3279J

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT-DR
Section 40aSection 57Section 80I

allowing claim of additional depreciation amounting to Rs. 10,43,83,712 (Rs. 18,26,71,497-7,82,87,784) under section 32(1 )(iia) of the Act and recomputed the deprecation of Rs 359,20,57,325 after giving effect to Assessment order of AY 12-13 despite ... confirming Ld. AO’s allegation that the claim of additional depreciation was to be mandatorily allowed in terms of Explanation 5 to section 32(1) of the Act, without appreciating that additional depreciation being optional in nature, is not covered within the purview of the said Explanation. 1.2. That

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5989/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6357/Del/2013: Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vs Cairn Energy Hydrocarbon Ltd., C/O. Cairn India Ltd., 3Rd & 4Th Circle-3(2), International Taxation, Floor, Vipul Plaza, Suncity, Sector- New Delhi 54, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccc3279J

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT-DR
Section 40aSection 57Section 80I

allowing claim of additional depreciation amounting to Rs. 10,43,83,712 (Rs. 18,26,71,497-7,82,87,784) under section 32(1 )(iia) of the Act and recomputed the deprecation of Rs 359,20,57,325 after giving effect to Assessment order of AY 12-13 despite ... confirming Ld. AO’s allegation that the claim of additional depreciation was to be mandatorily allowed in terms of Explanation 5 to section 32(1) of the Act, without appreciating that additional depreciation being optional in nature, is not covered within the purview of the said Explanation. 1.2. That

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5988/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6357/Del/2013: Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vs Cairn Energy Hydrocarbon Ltd., C/O. Cairn India Ltd., 3Rd & 4Th Circle-3(2), International Taxation, Floor, Vipul Plaza, Suncity, Sector- New Delhi 54, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccc3279J

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT-DR
Section 40aSection 57Section 80I

allowing claim of additional depreciation amounting to Rs. 10,43,83,712 (Rs. 18,26,71,497-7,82,87,784) under section 32(1 )(iia) of the Act and recomputed the deprecation of Rs 359,20,57,325 after giving effect to Assessment order of AY 12-13 despite ... confirming Ld. AO’s allegation that the claim of additional depreciation was to be mandatorily allowed in terms of Explanation 5 to section 32(1) of the Act, without appreciating that additional depreciation being optional in nature, is not covered within the purview of the said Explanation. 1.2. That