“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)

Plus Bksp Toll Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT 15 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7340/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Kavitha Rajagopal () - A.Y. 2012-13 - A.Y. 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32(1)(ii)

Assessing Officer had calculated the allowable amortisation amount as Rs.12,17,04,558/- as against the amount claimed by the assessee under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act at Rs.49,96,15,898/- thereby disallowing the excess amount of depreciation claimed by the assessee. On appeal, the Ld.CIT ... confirmed the addition made under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. With regard to the amortisation over the period of right to collect the toll, the Assessing Officer’s finding in computing the amount of amortisation was upheld by the Ld.CIT(A) on the ground that the assessee

DCIT - 3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. V. Hotels Ltd.(Formerly Known As Tulip Hospitality Services Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5664/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Section 32(1)(ii)

that the additional FSI is a business or commercial rights falling within the realm and scope of ‘intangible asset’ within the scope of section 32(1)(ii). The FSI only relates to giving of the right to construct additional floor to the assessee which only goes to enhance the value

DCIT - 3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. V. Hotels Ltd.(Formerly Known As Tulip Hospitality Services Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5663/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Section 32(1)(ii)

DCIT - 3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. V. Hotels Ltd.(Formerly Known As Tulip Hospitality Services Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5662/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Section 32(1)(ii)

M/S Te Connectivity India Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Circle-1, Bengaluru

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

ITA 2680/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Sumeet Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.S. Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 92

fact that the assets purchased during the year under consideration and categorised under the block 'plant and machinery' satisfied the conditions specified under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act, as certified in the tax audit report issued by the Chartered Accountant and accordingly the Appellant was eligible to claim

Jt. CIT (OSD) CC-7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Mumbai Nashik Expressway Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1590/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blejt.Cit(Osd)-Central Circle -7(2) V. M/S. Mumbai Nasik Expressway Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 655, Aayakar Bhavan Unit 803, 8Th Floor, A-Wing, One Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai -400051 Pan: Aaecm3349K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Kabra Department By : Shri Rajesh Damor

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav KabraFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Damor

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(m)

time in order to recoup the end of the project. Thus, the annuity being an intangible commercial right, falls within the purview of section 32(1 )(ii) of the Act. Further, the said right has been given to the appellant for a specified period with enduring benefit. It is also ... have effect which means it slowly will depreciate to the nil value. As per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, especially under section 32(1)(ii), tie assessee is entitled to claim of depreciation on such type of rights. 6.3 Further, the aforementioned issue is now squarely covered

M/S. Syngene International Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range- 6, Bangalore

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

ITA 148/BANG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 10ASection 10BSection 14ASection 250Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80

allowing the alternative claim of deduction under section 80-IB(SA) of the Act. 4. Disallowance of claim for additional depreciation made under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act 4.1 The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not allowing the additional depreciation on plant ... take note of the details of additional depreciation schedule submitted during the appellate proceedings and asset wise details on which depreciation claimed under section 32(1)(iia) furnished during the course of the assessment proceedings, which clearly substantiates the details of assets eligible for additional depreciation under section 32(1

Loreal India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/ACIT/ITO/NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2016-17 is treated as partly allowed

ITA 802/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

29.The Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT Vs Smifs Securities Ltd (supra) held that Goodwill is an asset under Explanation 3(b) to section 32(1) and, thus, it is eligible for depreciation. The Hon’ble Court observed that Explanation 3 to section 32(1) states that the expression 'asset

L' Oreal India P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. National E-Assessment Centre/ Dy CIT-Circle-7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2016-17 is treated as partly allowed

ITA 1198/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

Dy CIT Circle- 12(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Archroma India Pvt Ltd., Thane

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 590/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – Circle – 12(1)(1) V. M/S. Archroma India Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 128C, 1St Floor 9Th Floor, D Building Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mbc Park, Ghodbunder Road Mumbai - 400020 Kasawadavali, Thane Mumbai - 400615 Pan: Aaaca8270F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agrawal Department By : Ms. Shailaja Rai

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Ms. Shailaja Rai

Section 170Section 2(42)Section 2(42)(C)Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 50BSection 5O

Network (CDN) is an eligible intangible assets or the same can be recharacterised as goodwill for the purpose of applying tax depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) of the income tax act. 14. Learned counsel further submitted that even if WDV of the transferor is adopted the balancing figure ... Archroma India Pvt. Ltd., depreciation on assets. In this regard we may refer to the 5th proviso to section 32(1). The said proviso is as under :- Provided also that the aggregate deduction, in respect of depreciation of buildings, machinery, plant or furniture, being tangible assets or know-how, patents

Jt. CIT (OSD), CC-7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Andhra Expressway Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1588/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1588/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1589/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Jcit (Osd), Cc-7(2), M/S Andhra Expressway Ltd. R. No. 655, Aayakar बनाम/ Ground Floor, Gammon Bhavan, M. K. Road, House, Veer Savarkar Vs. Mumbai-400020 Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400 025 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aadca3577E (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Smt. Shailja Rai, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By Shri Rakesh Joshi, Ld. Ar : सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 01.06.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 24.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 29.06.2021, Passed By 2

For Appellant: Smt. Shailja Rai, Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 80I

recoup the cost of the project. Thus, the right to collect toll being an intangible commercial right, falls within the purview of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Further, the said right has been given to the appellant for a specified period with enduring benefit. It is also ... I.T.A. No. 1588 & 1589/Mum/2021 M/s Andhra Expressway Ltd. value. As per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, especially under section 32(1)(ii), the Appellant is entitled to claim of depreciation on such type of rights. 7.2.2. The CBDT has issued Circular No. 09/2014 dated 23.04.2014, in which

DCIT Cent, Cir-2(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Vinati Organics Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1799/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Sidhharth Kothari, ARFor Respondent: Mr. S.N. Kabra, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 195Section 32Section 4

Court in the case of CIT vs. Rittal India Private Limited ITA No. 267/2014, wherein it was held that, "... 7. Clause (ila) of Section 32(1) of the Act, as it now stands, was substituted by the Finance Act, 2005, applicable with effect from 01.04.2006. Prior to that, a proviso ... existing industries, which seek to expand its sway, by investing in and making use of new plant and machinery. The plain language of Section 32(1)iia) read along with the relevant proviso come to the conclusion that, there is no limitation in the assessee claiming the balance

Gea Process Engineering (India) P.Ltd, Gujrat vs. ITO, Mumbai

ITA 4338/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09 Dcit, M/S. Gea Process Circle- 2(2)(1), Engineering (India) Pvt. Room No.545, Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Savli Road, M.K. Road, P.O. Dumad, Mumbai - 400020 Baroda, Gujarat- 391740 Pan: Aaacl0566H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M. Lala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Mishra, D.R

Section 2(24)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

nature‟ and will be entitled for depreciation u/s 32 of the 1961 Act. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court elaborately discussed Explanation 3 to Section 32(1) of the 1961 Act in the case of CIT v. Smifs Securities Limited(supra), wherein Hon‟ble Supreme Court held as under ... order to retain its existing clientele. 3. The Assessing Officer held that goodwill was not an asset falling under Explanation 3 to Section 32(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ['Act', for short]. We quote hereinbelow Explanation 3 to Section 32(1) of the Act: "Explanation

DCIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Gea Process Engineering ()I) P.Ltd, Gujrat

ITA 4155/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M. Lala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Mishra, D.R

Section 2(24)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

M/S I & B Seeds Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 3415/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Nitish Ranjan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K, D.R

Section 43(1)

goodwill has been furnished before the lower authorities. 13.1 In our opinion, the relevant provisions applicable to the facts of the case are section 32(1), 43(1), 47(xiv)/47(vi) & 47(via) of the Act, which we discussed elsewhere in this order. 13.2 After having noticed the above ... However, it has been valued by assessee at Rs.17,39,83,689/- and said amount has been paid by assessee. 13.3 Section 32(1) of the Act provides for depreciation in respect of trade mark owned wholly or partly by the assessee. In the present case, assessee has taken over

M/S. Syngene International Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range- 6, Bangalore

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

ITA 147/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sri Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sumer Singh Meena, DR

Section 10ASection 10BSection 14ASection 250Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80

deduction under section 80-IB(8A) of the Act while passing the order. 4. Disallowance of claim for additional depreciation made under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act 4.1 The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not allowing the additional depreciation on plant ... depreciation schedule submitted during the appellate proceedings and in the course of the assessment proceedings, which substantiates the claim of additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. 5 Addition under section 14A of the Act 5.1 The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts

M/S. Te Connectivity Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 300/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.300/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Sheshadri & Ms. Amulya K., CAsFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)

ignored that intangibles comprise of various assets. 4. The Learned AO / DRP erred in invoking the sixth (originally fifth proviso) to section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and disallowing the claim of depreciation under section 36 of the Act (a) despite having admitted in page ... principle settled by the Hon'ble SC. 57. The AO rejected the value of goodwill by invoking the sixth proviso to Section 32(1) of the Act and holding that the said acquisition is a colourable device to reduce tax liability, on the allegation that the Appellant failed to furnish

Dusters Total Solutions Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)1, Bangalore

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

ITA 165/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Dusters Total Solutions Dcit, Vs. Services Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 2(1)(1), 4Th Floor, No.50, Zatakia Centre, Bengaluru. 100 Ft. Road, Indiranagar, Bengaluru – 560 038. Pan : Aaccd 5989 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Roumuan Paite, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 16.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2022 O R D E R Per B. R. Baskaran:

For Appellant: Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Roumuan Paite, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32(1)Section 43(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B. R

Real Gold Developers LLP, Mumbai vs. ACIT, RG. 20(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1899/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanita Nos. 1899 & 1900/Mum/2021 (A.Ys: 2014-15 & 2017-18)

For Appellant: Mr.Malav .P. Sheth.ARFor Respondent: Mr.T.Shankar .DR

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN

Sagar Damoh Toll Roads Limited, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 8(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3147/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesagar Damoh Toll Vs. Acit, Circle – 8(1)(2) Roads Ltd Room No. 651, 6Th 513A, 5Th Floor, Floor, Aayakar Kohinoor City, Kirol Bhavan, Mk Road, Road, Off Lbs Marg, Mumbai – 400020. Kurla, Mumbai – 400070 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacce2160Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. K. Shivaram.Ar Respondent By : Shri Ajay K. Shrivastava.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Mumbai Passed 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri. K. Shivaram.ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay K. Shrivastava.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 32(1)(ii)

accepting the contention of the Appellant that Concessionaire I Toll Collection Rights falls within the definition of Intangible Assets as per section 32(1)(ii) of the Income tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') entitled for depreciation © 25%. The disallowance of depreciation made by the learned CIT(A) in the order ... Ld.AR that the assessee is entitled for depreciation on toll collection rights as it is an intangible asset as per the section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. The assessee company is engaged in the business of design, engineering procure, construction, maintenance, management and operation of toll collection