← 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)

Ashish Life Science P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT-Circle-9(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 964/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 964/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ashish Life Science Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Acit-Cir, 9(1)(2) 210, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar 213, Laxmi Plaza Industrial Vs. Estate, New Link Road, Bhavan, M. K. Road, Andheri, Mumbai-400053. Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcb4093N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dhaval Shah Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murty सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 15.04.2021 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The “(Nfac)”] In The Relevant A.Y.2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Passing The Order U/S. 250 Of The Act Through National Faceless Appeal Center Which Is Bad In Law & Invalid. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts Confirming The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Act Without. Considering The Written Submissions Filed By The Appellant. As Such, The Order Is

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval ShahFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R. Murty
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

when the expense were incurred for registration of Trademark in that country and also for registration of Patent, which are intangible assets under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act? ITA. No.964/Mum/2021 A.Y. 2017-18 These questions pertain to the expenditure incurred by the assessee towards product registration before

M/S. Sogefi Mnr Filtration India Pvt Lld, Bangaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-12(2), Bangaluru

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2076/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

deprecation was claimed on the revalued asset. The Assessee has not claimed additional depreciation of Rs 2,80,450 in terms of section 32 (1) (iia) in the case of new plant and machinery acquired and installed after 22.7.2008 and the depreciation was reworked and only for the period starting ... assessee is not entitled to depreciation on revalued building. The Assessee had claimed additional depreciation of Rs 2,80,450 in terms of section 32 (1) (iia) for new plant and machinery acquired and installed after 22.7.2008. In support of the claim the Assessee produced bills in respect

M/S. Sogefi Mnr Filtration India Pvt Ltd, Bangaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-12(2), Bengaluru

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2075/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

deprecation was claimed on the revalued asset. The Assessee has not claimed additional depreciation of Rs 2,80,450 in terms of section 32 (1) (iia) in the case of new plant and machinery acquired and installed after 22.7.2008 and the depreciation was reworked and only for the period starting ... assessee is not entitled to depreciation on revalued building. The Assessee had claimed additional depreciation of Rs 2,80,450 in terms of section 32 (1) (iia) for new plant and machinery acquired and installed after 22.7.2008. In support of the claim the Assessee produced bills in respect

M/S. Sogefi Mnr Filtration India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-12(2), Bengaluru

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2074/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

deprecation was claimed on the revalued asset. The Assessee has not claimed additional depreciation of Rs 2,80,450 in terms of section 32 (1) (iia) in the case of new plant and machinery acquired and installed after 22.7.2008 and the depreciation was reworked and only for the period starting ... assessee is not entitled to depreciation on revalued building. The Assessee had claimed additional depreciation of Rs 2,80,450 in terms of section 32 (1) (iia) for new plant and machinery acquired and installed after 22.7.2008. In support of the claim the Assessee produced bills in respect

Aarti Industrial Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 15(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3695/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Bledcit – 15(1)(1) V. M/S. Arti Industries Ltd., Room No. 470, 4Th Floor 71, Udyog Kshetra, 2Nd Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mulund-Goregoaon Link Road Mumbai - 400020 Mulund(W), Mumbai -400080 Pan: Aabca2787L Appellant Respondent & C.O. No. 145/Mum/2019 [Arising Out Of Ita.No. 3583/Mum/2018 (A.Y. 2014-15)] M/S. Arti Industries Ltd., V. Dcit – 15(1)(1) 71, Udyog Kshetra, 2Nd Floor Room No. 470, 4Th Floor Mulund-Goregoaon Link Road Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mulund(W), Mumbai -400080 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aabca2787L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue By : Ms. Shailaja Rai & Shri Mehul Jain

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Shailaja Rai &
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 80

Ld.CIT(A) erred in allowing the additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of Rs.11,49,18,592/-, ignoring that section 32(1)\iia) lays down that the benefit of additional depreciation shall be given only on the assets in the year of purchase only and not in the next financial ... allow this ground of appeal of the assessee. Accordingly, we direct the AO to allow the additional depreciation claimed by the assessee under section 32(1) (iia) of the Act.” Similarly, for the A.Y. 2012-13 and 2013-14, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the additional depreciation

DCIT 6 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Kilitch Healthcare India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross objection is held to be infructuous

ITA 7061/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viia)Section 56(2)(viib)

find any infirmity in the order of learned CIT(A). Hence, we uphold the same. 21. Apropos issue of addition of depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) This issue relates to A.O.'s action in denying depreciation on goodwill u/s. 32(1)(ii) arising to the Appellant pursuant ... assessee submitted that in the assessee's case the liabilities were in excess of asset to the extent of Rs.9,98,05,871. Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act prescribes that in respect of knowhow, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licences franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar

Reliance Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Mumbai

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 2876/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 28

facts are like this. So far as the pre 1st April 2002 position is concerned, i.e. prior to insertion of Explanation 5 to Section 32(1) of the Act, the assessee had not claimed the depreciation on certain assets. The written down value of these assets thus remained constant till

DCIT (Ltu)-2, Mumbai vs. M/S Reliance Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 2344/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 28

facts are like this. So far as the pre 1st April 2002 position is concerned, i.e. prior to insertion of Explanation 5 to Section 32(1) of the Act, the assessee had not claimed the depreciation on certain assets. The written down value of these assets thus remained constant till

Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Mumbai

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 1645/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 28

facts are like this. So far as the pre 1st April 2002 position is concerned, i.e. prior to insertion of Explanation 5 to Section 32(1) of the Act, the assessee had not claimed the depreciation on certain assets. The written down value of these assets thus remained constant till

M/S. Karnataka Power Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 11(5), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

ITA 26/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 115JSection 80I

issue in the case of Hutti Gold Mines Co Ltd (supra), wherein it was held as under:- “7.1 The amendment brought about in section 32(1)(iia) by the Finance Act, 2012 to include the business of generation and distribution of power to the benefit of additional depreciation is only ... generation of electricity is a manufacturing activity. The assessee is involved in the manufacturing activity and fulfills the conditions as laid down under section 32(1)(iia). The Government vide Finance Act, 2012 has amended the provisions of section 32(1)(iia) to include the business of generation or generation

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. Karnataka Power Corporation Limited, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

ITA 10/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 115JSection 80I

issue in the case of Hutti Gold Mines Co Ltd (supra), wherein it was held as under:- “7.1 The amendment brought about in section 32(1)(iia) by the Finance Act, 2012 to include the business of generation and distribution of power to the benefit of additional depreciation is only ... generation of electricity is a manufacturing activity. The assessee is involved in the manufacturing activity and fulfills the conditions as laid down under section 32(1)(iia). The Government vide Finance Act, 2012 has amended the provisions of section 32(1)(iia) to include the business of generation or generation

Tosoh India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T.-13(3) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1463/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

1 ITA 1028/Mum/2021 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND

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

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for 37

ITA 3373/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.3373/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Te Park, 22B, Doddenakundi Corporation, 2Nd Circle - 2, Large Taxpayer Unit, Phase, Industrial Area, Whitefield Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 7374 C Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sriram Seshadri, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 22.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.02.2022 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 144C

claim of depreciation under section 32 of the Act is a mandatory allowance goodwill arising on merger satisfied the conditions specified under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, as certified in the tax audit report IT(TP)A No.3373/Bang/2018 Page 5 of 33 ISSUE GROUNDS OF APPEAL (“GoA”) issued ... held that, a reading of the words 'any other business or commercial rights of similar nature' in clause (b) to Explanation 3 of Section 32(1), indicates that goodwill would fall under the said clause. The principle of ejusdem generis would strictly apply while interpreting the said expression which finds

Sabmiller India Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 11(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 7157/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

Marks/ Brands" and claimed depreciation on the Foster's Brand, at the rate of 25% on written down value basis, in accordance with section 32(1) of the Act and the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 6.2. For the year under consideration, the assessee claimed depreciation amounting

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for parity of reasons

ITA 1602/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 1602/मुं/2020 ("न. व. 2015-16) आअसं. 1600/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2017-18) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Taxation Section, 4Th Floor, Bharat Bhavan, 4 & 6 Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001 Pan: Aaacb-2902-M ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -2, Room No.344, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Jehangir D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : S/Shri Rahul Raman & B.K. Bagchi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/02/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D. Mistry, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Rahul Raman & B.K. Bagchi
Section 10(34)Section 236Section 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

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT, Circlr-2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for parity of reasons

ITA 1600/MUM/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 1602/मुं/2020 ("न. व. 2015-16) आअसं. 1600/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2017-18) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Taxation Section, 4Th Floor, Bharat Bhavan, 4 & 6 Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001 Pan: Aaacb-2902-M ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -2, Room No.344, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Jehangir D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : S/Shri Rahul Raman & B.K. Bagchi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/02/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D. Mistry, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Rahul Raman & B.K. Bagchi
Section 10(34)Section 236Section 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

Asstt. CIT, Circle-3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Reliance Corporatio It Park Ltd., Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 1893/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita Nos. 1893 & 1894/Mum/2020 (A.Ys: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Acit, Circle -3(3)(1) Vs. M/S Reliance Room No. 609, 6Th Corporate It Park Ltd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Bldg. No. 45, Ttc Indl. Mk Road, Mumbai – Area, Thane-Belapur 400 020. Road, Rabale, Navi Mumbai – 400701. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcd7169H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mrs.Mamta Bansal. Cit Dr Respondent By : Mr. Nimesh Vora.C A .Ar Date Of Hearing 24.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 17.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Mumbai, Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act.

For Appellant: Mrs.Mamta Bansal. CIT DRFor Respondent: Mr. Nimesh Vora.C A .AR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92

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)(iii) r.w,s. 43(6)(c) of the Act makes it clear that entitlement of ass t eligible for depreciation has to be examined ... supra), we are of the considered view that the assessee is entitled for depreciation on the leased asset as per provisions section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. The Ld CIT(A) after considering relevant facts has rightly deleted additions made by the AO towards disallowance of depreciation, hence

M/S. Simtools Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-7(3) ( Earstwhile DCIT- Cent. Cir-42), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed as above

ITA 1574/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha
Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 32(1)Section 79

construction of real estate. The AO in the assessment order noted that A search 2 M/s. Simtools Pvt. Ltd. and seizure action under section 32(1) of the Act was carried out on Lodha Group of cases on 10th January 2011. That the assessee company is part of the Lodha

Power Exchange India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-14(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 769/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Mr. Sunil Nahta.ARFor Respondent: Mr. S.G. Menon. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(ii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

M/S. Altimetrik India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2511/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Feb 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)(c)

Page 2 of 9 IT(TP)A No. 2511/Bang/2019 disallowing the depreciation on goodwill by placing reliance on the sixth proviso to section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). 2.2. The Hon'ble DRP has erred in law in holding that the Appellant's claim ... provisions contained in Explanation 7 to section 43(1), read with Explanation 2 to section 43(6)(c) read with sixth proviso to section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 2.3. The Hon'ble DRP and learned AO has erred in not appreciating the fact that the sixth proviso