“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)

ACIT Circle 1, Trichy vs. Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd., Dalmiapuram

ITA 3158/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 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

ACIT Circle 1, Trichy vs. Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd., Dalmiapuram

ITA 3157/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

Sabarmati Gas Limited, Gandhinagar vs. Pr.CIT, Ahmedabad-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1219/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashesh Rajesh Rewar, CIT-D.R

Section 263Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80G

cess amounting to Rs. 1,52,25,365/-. The Pr. CIT noticed that the company claimed additional depreciation under sub-clause (iia) of section 32(1) of the Act to the tune of Rs. 29,54,60,265/-. Additional depreciation u/s. 32(1) (iia) is allowable to an assessee

Ls Metatech Private Limited, Raipur vs. ITO, Circle 1(1), Raipur

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

ITA 766/RPR/2025[2024-25]Status: HeardITAT Raipur22 Dec 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.766/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2024-25 Ls Metatech Private Limited 109, 1St Floor, Meghdoot Complex, Behind Vandana Bhawan, M. G. Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aadcl5735B

For Appellant: Shri Shubham B Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 234BSection 288Section 44ASection 80Section 80I

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

Divjyot Chemicals Private Limited, K.V. Rangareddy vs. ITO., Ward-17(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 948/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri Y V Bhanu Narayan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. B K Vishnu Priya, SR-DR

Section 144Section 156Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 50

this transaction of sale of car in the block of assets strictly as per the accounting standard as well as the provisions of section 32(1) r.w. section 43(6) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer in the order passed pursuant to the order of Ld. ITA No.948/Hyd/2025

M/S. Indus Trust, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 2298/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT

Section 234B

along with additional depreciation of 20%, aggregating to ₹9,04,93,001, on the windmill. The AO examined the provisions of section 32(1)(iia) of the Act and noted that additional depreciation is allowable only where the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture or production ... manufacturing or production of any article or thing. Therefore, the AO held that the assessee was not eligible for additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. Reliance was placed on the decision of ITAT Chennai in the case of Shriva Cargo Movers Ltd. reported in 23 taxmann.com

Joshi Technologies International Inc India Projects, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT (Int. Taxa-1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 81/AHD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-D.R

Section 143(3)Section 32Section 80I

mineral oil is akin to manufacture or production of article or thing, hence, the assessee is entitled to claim additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. Especially on the ground of maintaining consistency. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions in assessee’s own case ... mineral oil is similar to manufacture or production of article or thing, hence, the assessee is entitled to claim additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. These factual aspects were not disputed by the Ld. DR in the present Assessment Years as well. Thus, Ground

Joshi Technologies International Inc India Projects, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT (Int. Taxa-1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 80/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-D.R

Section 143(3)Section 32Section 80I

Joshi Technologies International Inc India Projects, Ahmedabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle(Int.Taxn.)-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 244/AHD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-D.R

Section 143(3)Section 32Section 80I

Srf Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant / Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 10(1), New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 5618/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 80Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘H’: NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK

Srf Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-10(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1449/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 80Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘H’: NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK

Srf Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-10(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1448/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 80Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘H’: NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK

Srf Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 1, Ltu, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 4539/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92BSection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘H’: NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK

Srf Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 80/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92BSection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘H’: NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK

M/S Gera Developments Pvt. Ltd, Pune vs. PCIT (Central), Pune

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

ITA 1053/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

assessee company as well as the amalgamating company M/s Gera Realty India Private Ltd (GRIPL). (iii) As per the 6th proviso of section 32(1) of the Income-tax Act, the total claim of the depreciation cannot exceed the deduction calculated, as if the amalgamation have not taken place ... Goodwill is something related to specific advantage or enduring benefits amalgamating company receives in the process of amalgamation. As per 6th proviso to section 32(1) of the Act, it is clear that the total claim of depreciation shall not exceed the deduction calculated as if the amalgamation

Marvell India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1608/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudharym/S. Marvell India Private Limited 10Th Floor, Tower D & E Global Technology Park, Marathahalli Outer Ring Road Devarabeesanahalli Village Varthurhobli Bangalore 560 103 ………. Appellant [Pan: Aaecm5559R]

For Appellant: Sri Chavali NarayanFor Respondent: Sri Muthu Shankar

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 200ASection 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 270ASection 274Section 28

pertains to disallowance of claim of depreciation amounting to INR.3,08,21,235/- made by the Assessee during the relevant previous year under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act in respect of goodwill on intangible assets. 7.1. On perusal of records, we find that during the relevant previous year ... filed before the DRP in relation to the same. The DRP rejected the objections raised by the Assessee observing that the provisions of Section 32(1) of the Act were amended w.e.f. 01/04/2021 to specifically exclude goodwill from the category of asset/depreciable assets. The aforesaid amendment introduced by Finance

Viacom 18, Media Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT-8, Mumbai

ITA 2591/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Agarwal/Ms. MokshaFor Respondent: Mr. Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 32

assessment year 2016-17, the Assessing Officer, however, disallowed depreciation on such goodwill by invoking the sixth proviso to section 32(1) of the Act, on the premise that depreciation in the hands of the amalgamated company cannot exceed what would have been allowable to the amalgamating company ... involving mid-year amalgamation). Significantly, the proviso was introduced even before intangible assets, including goodwill, came to be recognised as depreciable assets under section 32(1)(ii). Thus, the legislative intent behind the proviso cannot be stretched to deny depreciation on goodwill that did not exist in the books

Gbt India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, OSD, Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed as above

ITA 1764/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

8965/Del/2019 and also in AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18. The Ld. Counsel, drawing our attention to the Explanation 3(b) to section 32(1) of the Act, submitted that the goodwill is an asset eligible for depreciation. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court ... section 43(1) of the Act, Explanation 2 to section 43(6) of the Act and sixth proviso to section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, submitted that the depreciation on goodwill was not allowable. He placed reliance on the decision in United Breweries Ltd. 76 taxmann.com

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Siyaram Silk Mills Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 2941/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Girish Agrawalassistant Commissioner Of Vs. Siyaram Silk Mills Income Tax Limited Room No. 506, 5Th Floor, B5, Trade World, Aaykar Bhavan, M K Road, Kamala City, Senapati Churchgate, Bapat Margf, Lower Mumbai- 400020 Parel West, Mumbai- 400013 Pan/Gir No. Aaacs6995D (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 250Section 32Section 32(1)

Ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that Ind AS 38 discourages recognition of self-generated goodwill as an asset and Section 32(1) of the Income Tax Act, read with Explanation 3, contemplates depreciation on intangible assets that are acquired and recognized as such whereas intangible assets arising ... place in Explanation 3(b). In the circumstances, we are of the view that 'Goodwill' is an asset under Explanation 3(b) to Section 32(1) of the Act.") 6 Siyaram Silk Mills Limited 7.3.3 Further the Act has been amended w.e.f. AY 2021-22 to explicitly prohibit claim

DCIT CC 7(2).Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Man Industries (India) Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 619/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-2021

For Respondent: Mr. K. Gopal

Section 14ASection 194ASection 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA