← 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)

Indauto Filters, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 719/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri K G Acharya, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 32

return of income, the Assessing Officer is duty bound to grant depreciation allowance by virtue of Explanation 5 to section 32(1) of the Act (Inserted by Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f. 1/4/2002). 10.1. Circular No.14 (XI-35) of 1955, dated April 11, 1955 provides that the officers of the department ... rights and liabilities and as to the procedure to be adopted for claiming refunds and reliefs". 10.2 In view of Explanation 5 to section 32(1), the Assessing Officer was duty bound to grant depreciation allowance, whether the same is claimed by the assessee or not, provided the conditions mentioned

M/S. Kirtilal Kalidas Jewellers (P) Ltd., Cimbatore vs. ACIT(Corporate Circle-2), Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee in I

ITA 151/CHNY/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. T. Banusekar, CharteredFor Respondent: Mr. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)

incurred on rented premises does not alter the character of the impugned expenditure in view of the provisions by way of Explanation to Section 32(1) of the Act. The said explanation reads as under: “Explanation – 1 - Where the business or profession of the Assessee is carried

Franklin Templeton Management (India) P.Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -Range-6(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2046/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Franklin Templeton Dy. Cit–Range 6(3)(1) Management (India) P. Ltd. Room No.506, 5 Th Floor, 12Th& 13Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, India Bulls Finance Center, Vs. Tower–2, Senapati Bapat M.K. Road, Marg, Elphinstone (W), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400013 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaact1609B Assessee By : Shri Farooq Irani, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vrinda U Matkari, Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.10.2022

For Appellant: Shri Farooq Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vrinda U Matkari, DR
Section 250Section 253Section 32(1)

Income Tax-Circle 6(3)(1), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned AO') in disallowingthe Appellant's claim for depreciation under section 32(1) of the Act amounting to Rs 1,47,05,938 in respect of Goodwill arisen on amalgamation of Pioneer ITI AMC Limited (PAMC) with ... made. Franklin Templeton Management (India) pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 16–17 2.10 In not allowing the said depreciation and completely ignoring Explanation 5 of section 32(1) of the Act as per which the deduction for depreciation should mandatorily be allowed while computing the total income of an assessee

Merck Specialities Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2056/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 4Section 5Section 92CSection 92C(1)

find that in the aforesaid decision the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with the issue of depreciation on BSE membership card under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, same is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Before concluding, it is relevant to note that ... that goodwill will fall under the expression 'or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature' and, hence, qualifies for depreciation under section 32(1) of the Act. In the present case, the AO as well as learned DRP did not entertain the claim of the assessee in view

Trivitron Health Care Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 1340/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1340/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 V. M/S.Trivitron Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner- “Sapthagiri Bhavan”, Of Income Tax, New No.15, Old No.25, Corporate Circle-3(1), Trivitron Sapthagiri Bhawan, Chennai. 4Th Street, Abhiramapuram, Chennai. [Pan: Aaact 9378 H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Mr.M.Rajan, CIT
Section 119Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

prejudicial to the interests of Revenue, because the Assessing Officer has allowed depreciation on goodwill, even though 5th proviso to section 32(1) of the Act, very clearly restricts claim of depreciation to successor company on amalgamation, as if such succession has not taken place. However, the Assessing Officer ... Officer has considered issue of depreciation claimed on goodwill arising out of amalgamation and after considering necessary facts with reference to provisions of section 32(1) of M/s.Trivitron Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. :: 5 :: the Act, has allowed depreciation. Therefore, view taken by the Assessing Officer is one of the possible view

ACIT, Cir- 14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Wns Global Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2474/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 14ASection 32(1)

also acquired contractual rights which, no doubt, is a valuable commercial right. Therefore, it comes within the meaning of intangible asset as per section 32(1)(ii) r/w Explanation 3(b) of the Act. Hence, depreciation claimed by the assessee is allowable. The decisions relied upon by the learned

ACIT, Circle 14 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. Wns Global Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2473/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 14ASection 32(1)

also acquired contractual rights which, no doubt, is a valuable commercial right. Therefore, it comes within the meaning of intangible asset as per section 32(1)(ii) r/w Explanation 3(b) of the Act. Hence, depreciation claimed by the assessee is allowable. The decisions relied upon by the learned

Addl CIT RG 7(1), Mumbai vs. Peninsula Land Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4136/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

conclude that the assessee is the owner of the Plant. There is therefore no difficulty in allowing depreciation claim at 25% under Section 32(1)(i) read with Appendix-I, Part- A division III (1) to the I.T. Rules, 1962. With effect from 1.4.2003, Computer Software has been classified

Peninsula Land Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3717/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

conclude that the assessee is the owner of the Plant. There is therefore no difficulty in allowing depreciation claim at 25% under Section 32(1)(i) read with Appendix-I, Part- A division III (1) to the I.T. Rules, 1962. With effect from 1.4.2003, Computer Software has been classified

M/S. India Medtronics Pvt.Ltd., Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1(2), Baroda

In the result, similarly the Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 480/AHD/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Rajan R. Vora with Sh. Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamath/ Akhtar Hussain Ansari
Section 234BSection 271Section 274Section 92C

However, both, the Assessing Officer as well as DRP disallowed assessee’s claim by holding that goodwill is not an intangible asset under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 44. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted, while deciding identical issue in assessee’s own case for assessment years ... considered rival submissions and perused material on record. The issue relating to depreciation on goodwill by treating it as an intangible asset under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act is no more res integra in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v/s Smifs

West Gujarat Exdpress Way Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -14(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 483/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Niranjan Govindekar a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Kardam
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(3)

Para 28 of its order held that assessee is entitled to collect toll tax, which is an intangible commercial right under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, at the rate as has been prescribed under the relevant rules. 9. It is the golden rule of tax, as laid down ... West Gujarat Expressway Ltd. (supra), for assessment year 2009-10 has held that „right to collect toll‟ is an „intangible asset‟ under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and therefore assessee is entitled to claim depreciation. The relevant findings of the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal are as under

ACIT, Circle-14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. West Gujarat Express Way Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2496/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Niranjan Govindekar a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Kardam
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(3)

Para 28 of its order held that assessee is entitled to collect toll tax, which is an intangible commercial right under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, at the rate as has been prescribed under the relevant rules. 9. It is the golden rule of tax, as laid down ... West Gujarat Expressway Ltd. (supra), for assessment year 2009-10 has held that „right to collect toll‟ is an „intangible asset‟ under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and therefore assessee is entitled to claim depreciation. The relevant findings of the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal are as under

M/S. Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2, Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, all these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2593/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri.Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 2593/Bang/2019 M/S. Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Acit, 2015-16 Te Park, 22B, Doddenakundi Corporation, Circle – 2, 2Nd Phase, Industrial Area, Large Taxpayer Unit, Whitefield Road, Bengaluru Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan: Aabct 7374 C 372/Bang/2021 -Do- -Do- 2016-17 200/Bang/2022 -Do- Dcit, Ltu, 2017-18 Circle – 2, Bengaluru. 716/Bang/2022 -Do- Acit, 2018-19 Circle – 7(1)(1), Bengaluru. Assessee By : Shri Sriram Seshadri, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 92Section 92ASection 92F

arising on account of amalgamation has also been considered as an intangible asset being business or commercial right and eligible for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. The AO required the assessee to provide explanation why depreciation claimed on goodwill in computation of income should ... contention of the assessee and disallowed the claim of depreciation by invoking explanation 3 to section 43(1) and fifth proviso to section 32(1)(iii). It was the plea of the Assessee that, goodwill did not pre- exist in the books of account of TESIL

Metallurgical Services P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-6, Mumbai

In the result, the impugned order is set-aside and the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 835/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 835/मुं/2021 (िन.व. 2015-16) Metallurgical Services Private Limited, Mehta House, Ashok Silk Mills Lane, Opp. Damodar Park, Off Lbs Marg, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai 400 086 Pan: Aafcm-5665-D ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumba-6, Room No.501, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : S/Shri Siddesh Chougule & Ajit Jain "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : S/Shri Amol Kirtane & Mehul Jain सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 17/06/2022 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 13/09/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: S/Shri Siddesh Chougule & Ajit JainFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Kirtane & Mehul Jain
Section 263Section 92BSection 92B(1)

Smifs Securities Ltd.(supra) has held that Goodwill is an asset under Explanation 3(b)(as applicable to assessment year under appeal) to section 32(1) of the Act and thus, depreciation on Goodwill is allowable. Undisputedly, in the present case the Goodwill has arisen on slump sale of business

M/S Bosch Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu Circle-1, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1629/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14 Bosch Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Hosur Road, Adugodi, Of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore – 560 030. Circle 1, Pan: Aaacm 9840P Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Advocate Respondent By : Shri V S Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S.2. This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Cit(Appeals), Bangalore-9, Bangalore Dated 31.3.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013- 14. 3. The Assessee Raised Grounds Pertaining To The Following Issues:- Deduction U/S. 35(2Ab) Computed On Net Expenditure As Opposed To Gross Expenditure Disallowance Of Provision For Bad & Doubtful Debts I) Disallowance Of Provision For Long Term Service Award Disallowance Of Expenditure U/S. 14A Of The Act Ii) Page 2 Of 67

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 14ASection 35Section 37Section 43BSection 80J

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT

Pr. CIT Circle-2, Mumbai vs. Bharat Prtroleum Corporation Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1601/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1601/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Bharat Petroleum बिधम/ Pcit, Circle-2 Corporation Ltd. Room No.344, Aayakar Vs. Taxation Section, Bhavan, M. K. Road, 4Th Floor, Bharat Bhavan 1, Mumbai-400020. 4 & 6 Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400001. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb2902M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Jehangir D. Mistry Revenue By: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-02 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”], Mumbai Dated 21.02.2020 For Assessment Year [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ay”] 2016-17 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”].

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D. MistryFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)
Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 32A

Tribunal in the case of Tejbali Singh Transport Co. vs. ITO, 27 TTJ (Jab) 405 explained the expression installed with reference to section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. While adjudicating on the issue of assessee’s claim of additional depreciation on Pay loader u/s. 32(1

DCIT Circle- 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Reliance Corporate It Park Ltd., Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid findings

ITA 1195/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora a/wFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, Sr. AR
Section 250

there is no change in facts for the subsequent years in case of depreciation on leased asset. Further, on a conjoint reading of section 32(1)(i) r.w.s. 43(6)(c) of the Act makes it clear that entitlement of asset eligible for depreciation has to be examined in year ... supra), we are of the considered view that the assessee is entitled for depreciation on the leased asset as per provisions of section 32(1)() of the Act. The Ld CIT(A) after considering relevant facts has rightly deleted additions made by the AO towards disallowance of depreciation, hence

DCIT Cent. Cir. 5(2), Mumbai vs. Ipca Laboratories Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 5227/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR
Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

assets acquired and installed during the FY 2006-07 (immediately preceding FY to the current FY under consideration) ignoring the express provisions of section 32(1)(iia) of the Act which specifically stats that additional depreciation shall be allowed only on assets acquired and installed during the previous year ... Income tax (Appeals). 044. The facts show that the assessee has acquired certain assets, which were entitled for additional depreciation according to Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act in the second half of the immediately preceding year. As the assessee has put to use those assets for less than

Ipca Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 3811/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR
Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

assets acquired and installed during the FY 2006-07 (immediately preceding FY to the current FY under consideration) ignoring the express provisions of section 32(1)(iia) of the Act which specifically stats that additional depreciation shall be allowed only on assets acquired and installed during the previous year ... Income tax (Appeals). 044. The facts show that the assessee has acquired certain assets, which were entitled for additional depreciation according to Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act in the second half of the immediately preceding year. As the assessee has put to use those assets for less than

Asst CIT (Ltu) 1, Mumbai vs. Ipca Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 3691/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR
Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

assets acquired and installed during the FY 2006-07 (immediately preceding FY to the current FY under consideration) ignoring the express provisions of section 32(1)(iia) of the Act which specifically stats that additional depreciation shall be allowed only on assets acquired and installed during the previous year ... Income tax (Appeals). 044. The facts show that the assessee has acquired certain assets, which were entitled for additional depreciation according to Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act in the second half of the immediately preceding year. As the assessee has put to use those assets for less than