“Section 32(1)”

ITO, Ward-32(4), New Delhi vs. Swati Oberoi, New Delhi

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh

ownership. Assistance from the law laid down therein can be taken for finding out the meaning of the term "owned" as occurring in section 32(1) of the Act. The term owned as occurring in section 32(1) of the Income-tax Act must be assigned a wider meaning. Anyone ... registered as contemplated by the Transfer of Property Act, the Registration Act, etc. "Building owned by the assessee", the expression as occurring in section 32(1) of the Income-tax Act, means the person who having acquired possession over the building in his own right uses the same

Heidelberg Cement India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

additional depreciation on plant & machinery. We do not find any merit in the arguments advanced by the Ld. counsel. The provisions of section 32(1)(iia) Heidelberg Cement India Limited Vs. DCIT clearly mention that in the case of any new machinery or plant which has been acquired and installed

S.N. Malhotra & Sons, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 62(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

contractor and does not run them on hire. The CIT(A) also confirmed the same. After perusal of 3rd proviso to Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, it can be seen that the said Section is not 3 applicable in the present case of the assessee

Bsc C&C Kurali Toll Road Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

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

Bsc C&C Kurali Toll Road Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

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

DCIT (Exemption), New Delhi vs. M/S. Nav Nirman Sewa Samiti, Delhi

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

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh[Through Video Conferencing]

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

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Hero Honda Motors Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2005-06

erred on facts and in law in not deleting the disallowance of additional depreciation of Rs. 14.93 crores claimed by the appellant under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act with respect to plant and machinery acquired during the year. 3.1 That the CIT (A) erred on facts ... machinery must directly result in increase in installed capacity of the manufacturing plant for the purposes of claiming additional depreciation thereon under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act, without appreciating that no such condition existed in the said section for entitling additional depreciation. 4. That the CIT (A) erred

M/S. Hero Motocorp Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2005-06

erred on facts and in law in not deleting the disallowance of additional depreciation of Rs. 14.93 crores claimed by the appellant under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act with respect to plant and machinery acquired during the year. 3.1 That the CIT (A) erred on facts ... machinery must directly result in increase in installed capacity of the manufacturing plant for the purposes of claiming additional depreciation thereon under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act, without appreciating that no such condition existed in the said section for entitling additional depreciation. 4. That the CIT (A) erred

Lord Krishna Rice Mills, Karnal vs. ITO, Ward-2, Karnal

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15 Lord Krishna Rice Mills, Vs Ito, C/O S.B. Gupta, Advocate, Ward-2, 3/93, Mall Road, Karnal. Karnal, Haryana. Pan : Aabfl5926H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mrs. Shivani Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.03.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27Th September, 2019 Of The Cit(A), Karnal, Relating To The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm & Derives Income From Manufacturing & Trading Of Rice By Husking Of Paddy & Sales Thereof. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 25Th September, 2013 Declaring An Income Of Rs.3,41,830/-. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 15Th February, 2016 Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.7,65,330/- Wherein He Made Certain Additions. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee Has Claimed Additional Depreciation On Purchase Of Machinery Of Rs.1,17,14,501/-. The Claim Of The Assessee For Additional Depreciation Was Rejected By The Ao Keeping In View Of The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of M/S Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. Cit Reported In 284 Itr 323, Since The Said Additional Depreciation Was Not Claimed By The Assessee Either In The Original Return Or Through The Revised Return.

Karnal is against law and facts. 2. The claim of additional Depreciation made during assessment proceedings should have been allowed in view of section 32(1) as A.O. is bound to allow additional Depreciation in view of explanation 5 to section 32(1). 3. That claim for additional Depreciation even

Geodis Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

erred in making disallowance and DRP erred in upholding disallowance of INR 20,713,187 being depreciation claimed under section 32(1 )(ii) of the Act, on the amount of goodwill. 4.2 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/ DRP erred in holding ... that goodwill does not qualify as 'business or commercial right’ as envisaged under section 32(1 )(ii) of the Act. 4.3 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in levying interest under section 234B and section 234D of the Act. Each

DCIT, Circle- 6(2), New Delhi vs. Container Corporation of India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2014-15

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Container Corporation of India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-6(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2014-15

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Jx Nippon Two Lubricants India Pvt. Ltd, Gurgaon vs. DCIT Circle-2(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 4985/Del/2019 :Asstt. Year : 2015-16 & Sa No. 985/Del/2019 :Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Jx Nippon Two Lubricants India Pvt. Vs Dcit, Ltd., Unit No. 1003, 10Th Floor, Vatika Circle-2(1), City Point, Mg Road, Gurgaon, Gurgaon-122001 Haryana-122001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcj3601L Assessee By :Sh. Nageswarrao, Adv. Revenue By:Sh. Vedprakash Mishra, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing:13.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.03.2021

capitalized the goodwill totaling to Rs.107,74,29,864/- out of which the assessee had claimed depreciation of Rs.13,46,78,733/- under section 32(1)(ii)(b) of the act. It is also being observed that the assessee had capitalized the goodwill on account of excess consideration paid ... 985/Del/2019 JX Nippon Two Lubricants India Pvt. Ltd. that since the goodwill is classified as an intangible assets within the meaning of Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, the depreciation has been rightly claimed. 27. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record

ACIT, New Delhi vs. India Trade Promotion Organization, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR

DCIT, Circle-17(1), New Delhi vs. Mps Infotecnics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result ground number 5 and 6 of the appeal of the learned assessing officer are dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Mps Infotecnics Pvt. Ltd, Income Tax (Formerly Known As Visesh Circle-17(1), Infotecnic Ltd), 703, Arunachal New Delhi Building, 19, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi Pan: Aaacv4805B (Appellant) (Respondent)

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S.SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

C I T vs. M/S Bharat Hotel Ltd

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms with no order as to

later decision in Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT (1999) 106 Taxman 166, where it was held that the word „owned‟ in Section 32(1) is provided with reference to the control exercised over the property by the person claiming relaxation. It is submitted that since the Assessee has made ... business or profession on the construction of any structure or doing of any work or in relation to....... the building.” In such event, Section 32 (1) would apply "as if the said structure or work is a building owned by the assessee. 18. In any event even for the period

C I T vs. M/S Bharat Hotels

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms with no order as to

later decision in Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT (1999) 106 Taxman 166, where it was held that the word „owned‟ in Section 32(1) is provided with reference to the control exercised over the property by the person claiming relaxation. It is submitted that since the Assessee has made ... business or profession on the construction of any structure or doing of any work or in relation to....... the building.” In such event, Section 32 (1) would apply "as if the said structure or work is a building owned by the assessee. 18. In any event even for the period

C.I.T vs. M/S Bharat Hotel Ltd

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms with no order as to

later decision in Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT (1999) 106 Taxman 166, where it was held that the word „owned‟ in Section 32(1) is provided with reference to the control exercised over the property by the person claiming relaxation. It is submitted that since the Assessee has made ... business or profession on the construction of any structure or doing of any work or in relation to....... the building.” In such event, Section 32 (1) would apply "as if the said structure or work is a building owned by the assessee. 18. In any event even for the period

C.I.T vs. M/S Bharat Hotels

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms with no order as to

later decision in Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT (1999) 106 Taxman 166, where it was held that the word „owned‟ in Section 32(1) is provided with reference to the control exercised over the property by the person claiming relaxation. It is submitted that since the Assessee has made ... business or profession on the construction of any structure or doing of any work or in relation to....... the building.” In such event, Section 32 (1) would apply "as if the said structure or work is a building owned by the assessee. 18. In any event even for the period

Srei Infrastructure Finance Limited vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is dismissed

assessee for a higher rate of depreciation, the import of the same term "purposes of business", used in the second proviso to section 32(1) of the Act gains significance. We are of the view that the interpretation of these words would not be any different from that which ... ascribed to them earlier, under section 32(1) of the Act. There- fore, the assessee fulfils even the requirements for a claim of a higher rate of depreciation, and, hence, is entitled to the same. ―In this regard, we endorse the following observations of the Tribunal, which clinch the issue