← 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)

DCIT 2(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Icici Bank Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 3 of appeal of

ITA 1550/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Icici Bank Limited, Dcit, 2(3)(2), Mumbai, Icici Bank Towers, North East Wing, Vs Aayakarbhavan, 1St Floor, Bandrakurla Complex, Mumbai – 400020. Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. [Pan No. Aaaci1195H] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue (Physical Hearing) Dcit, 2(3)(2), Mumbai, Icici Bank Limited Aayakar Bhavan, Vs Icici Bank Towers, North East Wing, 1St Floor, Bandrakurla Complex, Mumbai – 400020. Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. [Pan No. Aaaci1195H] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 10(15)Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 92CSection 92C(3)(c)

transaction being a financial lease transaction, the assessee did not satisfy the legal requirement of ownership of the assets for the purpose of Section 32(1) of the 1.T.Act, 1961 and therefore not entitled for claim of depreciation on the leased assets. 10 On facts and circumstances of the case

Icici Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 3 of appeal of

ITA 4418/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Icici Bank Limited, Dcit, 2(3)(2), Mumbai, Icici Bank Towers, North East Wing, Vs Aayakarbhavan, 1St Floor, Bandrakurla Complex, Mumbai – 400020. Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. [Pan No. Aaaci1195H] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue (Physical Hearing) Dcit, 2(3)(2), Mumbai, Icici Bank Limited Aayakar Bhavan, Vs Icici Bank Towers, North East Wing, 1St Floor, Bandrakurla Complex, Mumbai – 400020. Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. [Pan No. Aaaci1195H] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 10(15)Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 92CSection 92C(3)(c)

transaction being a financial lease transaction, the assessee did not satisfy the legal requirement of ownership of the assets for the purpose of Section 32(1) of the 1.T.Act, 1961 and therefore not entitled for claim of depreciation on the leased assets. 10 On facts and circumstances of the case

Signode India Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

ITA 240/HYD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri H. SrinivasuluFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 32

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." The Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, on identical facts and circumstances, the Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Hyderabad

Signode India Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

ITA 434/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri H. SrinivasuluFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 32

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." The Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, on identical facts and circumstances, the Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Hyderabad

ACIT-6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Real Estate Limited(Formerly Knowns As Century Textiles and Industries Limited), Mumbai

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4359/MUM/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri yogesh Thar & Shri VinayakFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-
Section 250Section 32(1)(i)

While the Hon'ble CIT(A) rightly accepted that the appellant is generating power for captive consumption and is entitled to depreciation under section 32(1)(i) of the Act, the conclusion that the claim must be restricted to a specific division is incorrect and contrary

Aditya Birla Real Estate Limited (Formerly Known As Century Textiles and Industries Limited), Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(1)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2979/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri yogesh Thar & Shri VinayakFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-
Section 250Section 32(1)(i)

While the Hon'ble CIT(A) rightly accepted that the appellant is generating power for captive consumption and is entitled to depreciation under section 32(1)(i) of the Act, the conclusion that the claim must be restricted to a specific division is incorrect and contrary

M/S. Barbeque Nation Hospitality Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

ITA 26/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. A. Shankar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. M. Mahesh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

holding company and booked a difference of Rs.13.45 Crores in the books as goodwill and depreciation was claimed @ 25% as per section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. The valuation of Rs.28.10 Crores was made without any scientific basis and only on the basis of assumption and exaggeration of valuation

M/S. Barbeque Nation Hospitality Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

ITA 25/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Respondent: Shri. A. Shankar, Sr. Advocate
Section 132Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

holding company and booked a difference of Rs.13.45 Crores in the books as goodwill and depreciation was claimed @ 25% as per section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. The valuation of Rs.28.10 Crores was made without any scientific basis and only on the basis of assumption and exaggeration of valuation

M/S. Barbeque Nation Hospitality Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 24/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. A. Shankar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. M. Mahesh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

holding company and booked a difference of Rs.13.45 Crores in the books as goodwill and depreciation was claimed @ 25% as per section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. The valuation of Rs.28.10 Crores was made without any scientific basis and only on the basis of assumption and exaggeration of valuation ... determined, depreciation allow become in ITA Nos.21 to 26/Bang/2024 Page 45 of 47 subsequent years automatically as per computation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and there are no material changes in the facts or law. The Revenue is bound to maintain consistency and cannot be disallowed

M/S. Barbeque Nation Hospitality Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Officer, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

ITA 23/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

holding company and booked a difference of Rs.13.45 Crores in the books as goodwill and depreciation was claimed @ 25% as per section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. The valuation of Rs.28.10 Crores was made without any scientific basis and only on the basis of assumption and exaggeration of valuation ... determined, depreciation allow become in Page 44 of 47 ITA Nos.21 to 26/Bang/2024 subsequent years automatically as per computation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and there are no material changes in the facts or law. The Revenue is bound to maintain consistency and cannot be disallowed

M/S. Barbeque Nation Hospitality Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 22/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. A. Shankar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. M. Mahesh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

holding company and booked a difference of Rs.13.45 Crores in the books as goodwill and depreciation was claimed @ 25% as per section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. The valuation of Rs.28.10 Crores was made without any scientific basis and only on the basis of assumption and exaggeration of valuation ... determined, depreciation allow become in ITA Nos.21 to 26/Bang/2024 Page 45 of 47 subsequent years automatically as per computation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and there are no material changes in the facts or law. The Revenue is bound to maintain consistency and cannot be disallowed

M/S. Barbeque Nation Hospitality Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 21/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. A. Shankar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. M. Mahesh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

holding company and booked a difference of Rs.13.45 Crores in the books as goodwill and depreciation was claimed @ 25% as per section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. The valuation of Rs.28.10 Crores was made without any scientific basis and only on the basis of assumption and exaggeration of valuation ... determined, depreciation allow become in ITA Nos.21 to 26/Bang/2024 Page 45 of 47 subsequent years automatically as per computation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and there are no material changes in the facts or law. The Revenue is bound to maintain consistency and cannot be disallowed

DCIT CC 8(2), Mumbai vs. Echjay Industries Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5437/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Respondent: Mr. N.R. Rao, Adv
Section 32Section 32(1)

self-generated or generated or independently acquired intangible asset? independently acquired intangible asset? 2. Whether, in view of the sixth proviso to Section 32(1) of 2. Whether, in view of the sixth proviso to Section 32(1) of 2. Whether, in view of the sixth proviso to Section 32 ... wherein it was categorically held that goodwill wherein it was categorically held that goodwill constitutes an “intangible asset” within the meaning of Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. “intangible asset” within the meaning of Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. “intangible asset” within the meaning of Section 32

DCIT CC 8(2), Mumbai vs. Echjay Industries Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5436/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Respondent: Mr. N.R. Rao, Adv
Section 32Section 32(1)

self-generated or generated or independently acquired intangible asset? independently acquired intangible asset? 2. Whether, in view of the sixth proviso to Section 32(1) of 2. Whether, in view of the sixth proviso to Section 32(1) of 2. Whether, in view of the sixth proviso to Section 32 ... wherein it was categorically held that goodwill wherein it was categorically held that goodwill constitutes an “intangible asset” within the meaning of Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. “intangible asset” within the meaning of Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. “intangible asset” within the meaning of Section 32

Indraprastha Gas Limited, Delhi vs. JCIT OSD Range-10, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

ITA 2422/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

Rs.927,94,09,651/-; wherein the Ld. Assessing Officer (‘AO’) disallowed the claim of (i) additional depreciation of Rs.9,78,36,988/- under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act and (ii) expenditure of Rs.3,65,85,683/- under Section 14A of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before

Deepa Jhunjhunwala, Shillong vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Shillong

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 127/GTY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) and thereafter aggrieved the assessee has approached the ITAT with the following grounds:

Section 139(4)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80Section 80ASection 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 ... 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)(iia) of the Act. As per the settled position of law, an assessee claiming exemption has to strictly and literally comply with the exemption

Deepa Jhunjhunwala, Shillong vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Shillong

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 126/GTY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) and thereafter aggrieved the assessee has approached the ITAT with the following grounds:

Section 139(4)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80Section 80ASection 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 ... 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)(iia) of the Act. As per the settled position of law, an assessee claiming exemption has to strictly and literally comply with the exemption

Mohmedamin Mohmedumar General, Surat vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle), Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 522/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(iia)

PCIT called for the records and examined the same. He found that the assessee had claimed additional depreciation under Clause (iia) of section 32(1) of the Act. Such additional depreciation is allowable in case of new machinery and plant acquired and installed in the business of manufacture or production

Gmm Pfaulder Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr.CIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 839/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.839/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2020-21 Gmm Pfaulder Ltd. The Pr.Cit बनाम/ 3Rd Floor, B-Jadav Chambers Ahmedabad-1 V/S. Navrangpura H.O. Ahmedabad – 380 015 Ashram Road Ahmedabad – 380 009 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aabcg 0563 A (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Ahmedabad-1 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Pr. Cit” For Short] Dated 07/03/2025 Passed In Exercise Of His Revisionary Jurisdiction Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short] For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020- 21. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Gmm Pfaulder Ltd. Vs. Pcit Asst. Year : 2020-21 2

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR
Section 135Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 32Section 80G

division and the same represented excess consideration paid for acquisition of business as a going concern, depreciation on such goodwill is allowable under section 32(1) of the Act, being an intangible asset within the meaning of Explanation 3(b). In light of the above binding judicial precedents, the claim ... held that depreciation on goodwill representing the excess consideration paid for acquisition of a going concern is allowable under section 32(1) of the Act even post amendment. Therefore, the view taken by the Assessing Officer was a plausible view in law and cannot be termed as erroneous merely because

Incometax Officer, Chennai vs. Doosan Bobcat India Pvt Ltd, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2137/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2137/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 & C.O. No. 75/Chny/2025 [In I.T.A. No. 2137/Chny/2025] The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Doosan Bobcat India Pvt. Ltd., Htc Towers, 6Th Floor, No. 41, Gst Corporate Ward 2(1), Chennai. Road, Guindy Industrial Estate, Chennai 600 032. [Pan: Aaccd6529L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ashik Shah, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C.P. Solomon, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.05.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appellant-Revenue Raised 6 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Allowing Assessee’S Claim Of Depreciation Under Section 2

For Appellant: Shri Ashik Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.P. Solomon, JCIT
Section 2Section 32(1)(ii)

base without appreciating that the said assets do not fall within the scope of intangible assets as defined in Explanation 3(b) to section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. He vehemently argued that the ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assets claimed by the assessee ... benefit to the assessee. He argued vehemently that the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the provisions of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and the intent of the legislature, which requires that only certain specifically enumerated intangible assets are eligible for depreciation