“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)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -7(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Horizon Packs Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5950/MUM/2024[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT D/R

Section 143(2)Section 32

being the difference between the purchase price and the value of the assets received, is a depreciable asset under Explanation 3(b) to section 32(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the assessee has considered Goodwill arising on account of the merger as an intangible depreciable asset.” 9. With this factual

Vishal Furnishing Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 8(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4550/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Vishal Furnishing Limited Assistant Commissioner Of Income 211, Shiv Shakti Industrial Complex, Tax, Circle 8(3)(1), Mumbai. Vs. Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400011. Pan/Gir No. Aaacr2138K (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rahul Hakkani Respondent By : Shri Vivek Perampurna (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.10.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1) The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Assessment Order Was Passed In Violation Of The Principles Of Natural Justice & Contrary To The Scheme Of Assessment & Hence The Assessment Order Was A Nullity & Deserves To Be Quashed. 2) The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Order Of Ao Disallowing Depreciation On Goodwill Of Rs 4,12,73,088/- (As Claimed In Accounts) Without Appreciating That Goodwill Had Arisen On Amalgamation & Was Eligible For Depreciation U/S 32 & Hence The Addition Of Rs 4,12,73,088/-May Be Deleted. Vishal Furnishing Limited

For Appellant: Shri Rahul HakkaniFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna (CIT DR)

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 32Section 32(1)Section 36(1)(va)

depreciation claimed by the assessee amounting to Rs. 4,12,73,088/- by relying on the 5th proviso (now 6th proviso) to Section 32(1) of the Act by holding that the depreciation of the goodwill is allowable only to the extent if amalgamation has not taken place

Neenopal Intelligent Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1104/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2021-22 M/S. Neenopal Intelligent Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, L-148 Bhive Workspace 5Th Main, Sector 6, Ward – 5(1)(1), Hsr Layout S.O. Hsr Layout S.O, Bangalore. Bangalore South – 560 102, Karnataka. Pan : Aafcn 2569 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Kaushik M, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Kaushik M, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 143(3)Section 80ISection 80J

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

Pmv Maltings Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-19(2), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee for ITA No

ITA 6906/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 143(3)Section 32

Smifs Securities Ltd 348 ITR 302 supra. “…3. The Assessing Officer held that goodwill was not an asset falling under Explanation 3 to Section 32(1) ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 ['Act', for short]. We quote hereinbelow Explanation 3 to Section 32(1) of the Act: "Explanation ... Explanation 3(b). 5. 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. One more aspect needs to be highlighted. In the present case, the Assessing Officer, as a matter of fact,came

Pmv Maltings Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-19(2), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee for ITA No

ITA 3103/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 143(3)Section 32

DCIT Central Circle 3(2), Mumbai, Air India vs. Aarti Industries Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4869/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Girish Agrawaldy. Cit, Central Circle-3(2) Aarti Industries Limited R. No. 1913, 19Th Floor, 71, Udyog Kshetra, 2Nd Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Mulund Goregaon Link Road, Mumbai-400 021 Mulund (W), Mumbai-400 080 Pan/Gir No. Aabca 2787 L (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: This Is An Appeal By The Revenue, Against The Order Dated 30.10.2023 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai (‘Ld.Cit(A) For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2015-16. 2. Ground No. 1 In The Appeal Reads As Under: 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Disallowances Made By The A.O. To Restrict The Deduction U/S. 80Ia Of The Act Despite The Fact That The Issue Has Not Attained Finality & Pending For Adjudication Before The Hon'Ble Supreme Court? – Rs.396,81,798/- 3. Briefly The Facts Are, The Assessee Is A Resident Corporate Entity Engaged In Manufacturing & Sale Of Chemicals, Fertilizers & Intermediaries. For Such Manufacturing Activity, The Assessee Has Set Up A Plant At Plot No. 801/23, Gidc, Phase-Iii

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav

Section 133(6)Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Mumbai vs. Yola Stays Limited, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1252/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Swapnil Chaudhary, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Hirani (Virtually

Section 250Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

circumstances of the case, the Ld. CITIA) erred in allowing the depreciation of Rs. 3,20,99,500/ on goodwill under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as goodwill related to land and does not qualify for depreciation as an intangible asset." 2. "On the facts ... circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in interpreting the provisions of Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in light of the Supreme Court ruling in CIT v/s Smif Securities Ltd. (348 ITR 302), which is distinguishable from the present case

Gsp Crop Science Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr.CIT-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 987/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT- DR

Section 135Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 35Section 37(1)Section 40Section 80G

depreciation of Rs. 12,05,222/-, we find that the assessee had claimed the balance 50% additional depreciation as per the provisions of section 32(1)(iia), and the same had been examined and allowed by the Assessing Officer. The Principal CIT has not brought on record any evidence

Star Wire (India) Vidyut Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-22(2), Delhi

ITA 4259/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 270ASection 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

Sprit Infrapower & Multiventures Private Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT-8, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1589/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, AR

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

that assessee has not shown any asset in the balance sheet as the amount of goodwill is fully impaired in AY 2014-15. Section 32(1) states that the one condition for claiming depreciation is that the block of assets should "exist" to claim depreciation. Since, goodwill is not treated ... when comparing facts of the current year, the question of allowability of depreciation has to be examined, in the light of provision of section 32(1), where it mandates the block of assets should exists to claim depreciation. Since, goodwill is not treated as an asset in its books

Goldman Sachs (India) Finance Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, Income-Tax Department, New Delhi

ITA 6765/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: 28.08.2025

Section 250Section 32(1)

assessee. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment by making the following additions / disallowances: (i) Disallowance of depreciation component in Occupancy Expenses under section 32(1) - Rs. 35,18,927/-. (ii) Disallowance of ESOP Expenses - Rs. 1,89,23,119/- (iii) Disallowance of reversal of provision for gratuity

Goldman Sachs (India) Finance Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, Income-Tax Department, New Delhi

ITA 6763/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: 28.08.2025

Section 250Section 32(1)

Goldman Sachs (India) Finance Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, Income-Tax Department, New Delhi

ITA 6762/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: 28.08.2025

Section 250Section 32(1)

Goldman Sachs (India) Finance Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, Income-Tax Department, New Delhi

ITA 6761/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: 28.08.2025

Section 250Section 32(1)

Maxxis Rubber India Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1129/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR

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

found to be erroneous causing prejudice to the Revenue on account of having allowed excess claim of depreciation to the assessee as per Section 32(1) of the Act. The order reveals that in the preceding assessment year the assessee had acquired Plant & Machinery on which alongwith normal depreciation ... depreciation of Rs.156,00,22,181/- was carried forward to be claimed in assessment year 2018-19 as per the third proviso to section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. A working of the total depreciation charged during the year under consideration is tabulated as under:- Block of assets Plant

Dynaspede Integrated Systems Private Limited, Salem Tamil Nadu vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Salem

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1861/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1860 & 1861/Chny/2024 िनधा=रण वष= /Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Narahari Nava Kanth, C.A LMFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 32(1)

disallowing depreciation on goodwill amounting to Rs. 2,74,15,039/-. The reopening was initiated based on the interpretation of the proviso to section 32(1) of the Act and the decision of the ITAT Bangalore Bench in the case of United ITA Nos.1860 & 1861/Chny/2024 Dynaspede Integrated Systems ... held that depreciation on goodwill arising from amalgamation was not allowable in view of the fifth proviso to section 32(1) of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal and dismissed the ground

Dynaspede Integrated Systems Private Limited, Salem, Tamil Nadu vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Salem

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1860/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1860 & 1861/Chny/2024 िनधा=रण वष= /Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Narahari Nava Kanth, C.A LMFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 32(1)

Akry Organics Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Central Circle 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, we allow the claim of the assessee for deduction under section 80-IA(4) to the extent of ₹17,40,75,413/-, as made in the revised return of income

ITA 3014/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 80

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

Apraava Renewable Energy Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Pr.CIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 694/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT. DR

Section 263Section 43B

business of generation of electricity and had selected SLM for calculating depreciation on assets for income tax purposes as per Section 32(1)(i) of the Act and in the SLM of depreciation, depreciation of the asset was to be calculated by applying the percentage of depreciation on the cost

Apraava Renewable Energy Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Pr.CIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 693/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT. DR

Section 263Section 43B