← 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)

Khandelwal Soya Industries Limited, Rampur vs. ACIT(Centeral), Bareilly

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the

ITA 93/LKW/2022[F.Y.2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S. H. Usmani, CIT(DR)
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 194H

manufacturing activity was not temporary affair. Also the assessee has not under taken any preventive maintenance of plant and machinery. The provisions of section 32(1) of the LT. Act say that the assets must be used for the purpose of the business or profession for claiming deduction of depreciation

The Acti, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Nirma Limited, Ahmedabad

ITA 1437/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.1412 & 1413/Ahd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: (2015-2016 & 2016-17) Nirma Limited, Nirma House, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. (Gujarat) बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad. स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacn5350K आयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.1436-1437/Ahd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : (2015-16 & 2016-17) The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad. Nirma Limited, बनाम / V/S. Nirma House, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. (Gujarat) स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacn5350K & C.O Nos.11-12/Ahd/2020 In आयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.1436-1437/Ahd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : (2015-16 & 2016-17) Nirma Limited, Nirma House, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. (Gujarat) The Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम/ V/S. Income Tax/The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad. स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacn5350K अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी / (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, withFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

form of marketing rights which are in the capital field. He therefore treated the registration rights as intangible assets within the meaning of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, held the expenditure to be capital in nature, and disallowed the claim of ITA Nos.1412-1413/Ahd/2019 with others Nirma Limited ... assets taken over and the liabilities assumed under the approved scheme of amalgamation and being an intangible asset within the meaning of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, depreciation thereon was allowable. ITA Nos.1412-1413/Ahd/2019 with others Nirma Limited Vs. DCIT Assessment Years

The Acti, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Nirma Limited, Ahmedabad

ITA 1436/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.1412 & 1413/Ahd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: (2015-2016 & 2016-17) Nirma Limited, Nirma House, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. (Gujarat) बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad. स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacn5350K आयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.1436-1437/Ahd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : (2015-16 & 2016-17) The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad. Nirma Limited, बनाम / V/S. Nirma House, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. (Gujarat) स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacn5350K & C.O Nos.11-12/Ahd/2020 In आयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.1436-1437/Ahd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : (2015-16 & 2016-17) Nirma Limited, Nirma House, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. (Gujarat) The Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम/ V/S. Income Tax/The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad. स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacn5350K अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी / (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, withFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

form of marketing rights which are in the capital field. He therefore treated the registration rights as intangible assets within the meaning of Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, held the expenditure to be capital in nature, and disallowed the claim of 18 ITA Nos.1412-1413/Ahd/2019 with others Nirma Limited ... assets taken over and the liabilities assumed under the approved scheme of amalgamation and being an intangible asset within the meaning of Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, depreciation thereon was allowable. 27 ITA Nos.1412-1413/Ahd/2019 with others Nirma Limited Vs. DCIT Assessment Years

Nirma Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dcti, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 1413/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.1412 & 1413/Ahd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: (2015-2016 & 2016-17) Nirma Limited, Nirma House, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. (Gujarat) बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad. स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacn5350K आयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.1436-1437/Ahd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : (2015-16 & 2016-17) The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad. Nirma Limited, बनाम / V/S. Nirma House, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. (Gujarat) स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacn5350K & C.O Nos.11-12/Ahd/2020 In आयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.1436-1437/Ahd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : (2015-16 & 2016-17) Nirma Limited, Nirma House, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. (Gujarat) The Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम/ V/S. Income Tax/The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad. स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacn5350K अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी / (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, withFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

form of marketing rights which are in the capital field. He therefore treated the registration rights as intangible assets within the meaning of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, held the expenditure to be capital in nature, and disallowed the claim of ITA Nos.1412-1413/Ahd/2019 with others Nirma Limited ... assets taken over and the liabilities assumed under the approved scheme of amalgamation and being an intangible asset within the meaning of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, depreciation thereon was allowable. ITA Nos.1412-1413/Ahd/2019 with others Nirma Limited Vs. DCIT Assessment Years

Nirma Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dcti, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 1412/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.1412 & 1413/Ahd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: (2015-2016 & 2016-17) Nirma Limited, Nirma House, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. (Gujarat) The Deputy Commissioner बनाम / Of Income Tax, V/S. Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad. स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacn5350K आयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.1436-1437/Ahd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : (2015-16 & 2016-17) The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad. Nirma Limited, बनाम / Nirma House, V/S. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. (Gujarat) स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacn5350K & C.O Nos.11-12/Ahd/2020 In आयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.1436-1437/Ahd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : (2015-16 & 2016-17) Nirma Limited, Nirma House, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. (Gujarat) The Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम/ V/S. Income Tax/The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad. स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacn5350K अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी / (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, withFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

form of marketing rights which are in the capital field. He therefore treated the registration rights as intangible assets within the meaning of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, held the expenditure to be capital in nature, and disallowed the claim of revenue deduction. However, the AO allowed depreciation ... assets taken over and the liabilities assumed under the approved scheme of amalgamation and being an intangible asset within the meaning of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, depreciation thereon was allowable. 47. The Assessing Officer, however, disallowed the claim for both the years following the stand taken

JCIT(OSD), Cir011(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Philips Carbon Black Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 234/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.234/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Jcit(Osd), Circle-11(1), Kolkata........................…...........................……….……Appellant Vs. M/S Philips Carbon Black Ltd.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Duncan House, 31 Netaji Subhas Road, Kol-1. [Pan: Aabcp5762E] Appearances By: Shri Praveen Kishore, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 30, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 29Th, 2025 Order Per Rajesh Kumar:

Section 144CSection 250Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80Section 80I

machinery, the assessee claimed only 50% of additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act in view of the second proviso to section 32(1) of the Act. Now, during the year under appeal i.e. assessment year 2014-15, the assessee has claimed balance additional depreciation of Rs.2 ... same in this year. The AO disallowed the assessee’s claim by observing that there was no such enabling provision in Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act which allowed the assessee to claim the balance 10% of the additional depreciation in the relevant year in relation to the asset

Tigre Sas Liquors India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-25(1), New Delhi

Accordingly, the ground no. 3 is allowed

ITA 7969/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay, Accoutant Member

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Sh. Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA &
Section 250Section 37

loss and further the assesse had also incurred Rs.6,37,058/- towards label registration charges for the same brand. In fact as per Section 32(1)(ii) expenditure for trade-mark /copy right, license, franchise are to be treated as capital in nature. Therefore, we do not find any reason ... creation of such intangibles are to be capitalized and accordingly, the asset so created is eligible for depreciation, under the provisions of section 32(1)(ii) hence, the AO allowed the depreciation of 25% on such intangible assets, disallowed the balance expenditure, thereby making an addition of Rs.79

Tigre Sas Liquors India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-25(1), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stand Partly

ITA 7968/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay, Accoutant Member & Tigre Sas Liquors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-25(1), 406, 4Th Floor, Elegance New Delhi Tower, Jasola, New Delhi – 25, (Pan: Aaect2925Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Vinod Kumar Bindal, Ca & Ms. Rinky Sharma, Itp & Sh. Anmol Jha, Adv. Respondent By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 19.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.08.2025 Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, SR. DR
Section 250Section 37

further the assesse had also incurred Rs. 6,37,058/- towards label registration charges for the same brand. In fact as per Section 32(1)(ii) expenditure for trade-mark /copy right, license, franchise are to be treated as capital in nature. Therefore, we do not find any reason ... creation of such intangibles are to be capitalized and accordingly, the asset so created is eligible for depreciation, under the provisions of section 32(1)(ii) hence, the AO allowed the depreciation of 25% on such intangible assets, disallowed the balance expenditure, thereby making an addition

ACIT, Circle-3(2), New Delhi vs. Asian Consolidated Inds.Ltd), Rewari

In the result, all the 03 appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 7501/DEL/2018[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay, Accoutant Member Ita No. 6218/Del/2017 (Asstt. Year 1994-95) & Dcit, Circle-3(2), New Delhi Vs. M/S Asian Consolidated Industries Ltd., 96Th Mile Stone, Delhi-Jaipur Highway, Village-Bawal, Distt.- Rewari, Haryana (Pan: Aaaca5887A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ayush Garg, Ca Department By : Ms. Monika Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.08.2025 Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ayush Garg, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 264

account of such kegs, depreciation at the rate of 100% has been claimed by the assesssee in accordance with the first proviso to Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. which reads as under: "Provided that where the actual cost of any machinery or plant does not exceed five thousand

DCIT, Circle-3(2), New Delhi vs. Asian Consolidated Inds.Ltd), Rewari

In the result, all the 03 appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 4514/DEL/2018[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay, Accoutant Member Ita No. 6218/Del/2017 (Asstt. Year 1994-95) & Dcit, Circle-3(2), New Delhi Vs. M/S Asian Consolidated Industries Ltd., 96Th Mile Stone, Delhi-Jaipur Highway, Village-Bawal, Distt.- Rewari, Haryana (Pan: Aaaca5887A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ayush Garg, Ca Department By : Ms. Monika Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.08.2025 Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ayush Garg, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 264

account of such kegs, depreciation at the rate of 100% has been claimed by the assesssee in accordance with the first proviso to Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. which reads as under: "Provided that where the actual cost of any machinery or plant does not exceed five thousand

DCIT, Circle-3(2), New Delhi vs. Asian Consolidated Inds.Ltd), Rewari

In the result, all the 03 appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 6218/DEL/2017[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 1994-95

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay, Accoutant Member Ita No. 6218/Del/2017 (Asstt. Year 1994-95) & Dcit, Circle-3(2), New Delhi Vs. M/S Asian Consolidated Industries Ltd., 96Th Mile Stone, Delhi-Jaipur Highway, Village-Bawal, Distt.- Rewari, Haryana (Pan: Aaaca5887A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ayush Garg, Ca Department By : Ms. Monika Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.08.2025 Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ayush Garg, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 264

account of such kegs, depreciation at the rate of 100% has been claimed by the assesssee in accordance with the first proviso to Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. which reads as under: "Provided that where the actual cost of any machinery or plant does not exceed five thousand

Electronica Finance Limited, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Pmt Building, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1112/PUN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1111 & 1112/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2022-23 & 2023-24 Electronica Finance Limited, Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bengaluru. Audumber, 101/1, Dr. Ketkar Road, Pune City, Deccan, Gymkhana, S.O., Pune- 411004. Pan : Aaace4577B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Narendra Joshi (Virtual) Revenue By Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde : Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 28.02.2025 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-1, Surat [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Years 2022-23 & 2023-24 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.1111/Pun/2025 For Assessment Year 2022-23 As The Lead Case For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Joshi (Virtual)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 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

Electronica Finance Limited, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Pmt Building, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1111/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1111 & 1112/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2022-23 & 2023-24 Electronica Finance Limited, Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bengaluru. Audumber, 101/1, Dr. Ketkar Road, Pune City, Deccan, Gymkhana, S.O., Pune- 411004. Pan : Aaace4577B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Narendra Joshi (Virtual) Revenue By Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde : Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 28.02.2025 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-1, Surat [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Years 2022-23 & 2023-24 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.1111/Pun/2025 For Assessment Year 2022-23 As The Lead Case For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Joshi (Virtual)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 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

ACIT, Circle-1(1), Rajkot vs. Gandhi Reality (India) Private Limited, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 110/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, Ld. CIT. (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 230

categorically held that a reading of 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 expression 'any other business or commercial rights of similar nature’. The principle of ejusdem generis would strictly ... Transferor Company transferred to and recorded by the assessee; was recognized as goodwill in accounts of the assessee. On the perusal of the Section 32(1) and Expl. 3(b) it can be seen that under the Act, depreciation is, inter-alia, allowed on intangible assets in the nature

Novateur Electrical and Digital Systems Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 944/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Tiwari and Shri Lekh Mehta, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 92CSection 92C(2)

amalgamation wherein goodwill arose. He referred to Navateur Electricals and Digital systems Pvt. Ltd. AY 2012-13 the sixth proviso (fifth proviso) of section 32(1), explanation 7 to section 43(1) and explanation 2 to section 43(6)(c). Ld. CIT(A) also noted while accepting the arguments ... no.2 along with its sub- grounds, we note that goodwill per se is an intangible asset within the meaning of explanation 3 to section 32(1)(ii) and is thus eligible for depreciation. We draw our force from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SMIFS

Dy CIT 10(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Novateur Electricals and Digital Systems Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1189/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Tiwari and Shri Lekh Mehta, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 92CSection 92C(2)

amalgamation wherein goodwill arose. He referred to Navateur Electricals and Digital systems Pvt. Ltd. AY 2012-13 the sixth proviso (fifth proviso) of section 32(1), explanation 7 to section 43(1) and explanation 2 to section 43(6)(c). Ld. CIT(A) also noted while accepting the arguments ... no.2 along with its sub- grounds, we note that goodwill per se is an intangible asset within the meaning of explanation 3 to section 32(1)(ii) and is thus eligible for depreciation. We draw our force from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SMIFS

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

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

ITA 6766/MUM/2024[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 253Section 32Section 37(1)

under section 144C of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and held that for availing the benefit of depreciation under section 32(1) of the Act, the primary condition is the ownership of the asset which the assessee has failed to comply, and therefore ... depreciation. The AO further held that the present case also does not fall within the ambit of the provisions of Explanation-1 to section 32(1) of the Act, as the expenditure on improvement of leasehold premises was not incurred by the assessee. The AO further held that a change

Thermo Fisher Scientific India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as per our aforesaid

ITA 2847/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2847/Mum/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2020-21 Thermo Fisher Scientific India Private Limited 403-404, Delphil B Wing, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai Iit, Mumbai-400 076 Pan : Aabct3207A ........अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-15(3)(1), Mumbai ......प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vipul Soni Revenue By : Shri Himanshu Joshi, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing :14.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 20.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri Vipul SoniFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 32(1)Section 80G

1. erred in not granting depreciation of Rs.56,64,861/- on the written down value of the manufacturing and supply contracts under Section 32(1) of the Act. 2. erred in disregarding the fact that such manufacturing and supply contracts are self-generated by GSK and have been acquired ... considering the value of manufacturing and supply contracts as goodwill acquired from GSK. pursuant to slump sale, which is eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1) r.w.s.2(11) of the Act. Disallowance of depreciation amounting to Rs.1641,402/ on contracts acquired from Chemito Technologies Private Limited (CTPL) 5. erred

Sabeena Silk Mills, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 31(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 1508/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narndra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjeesabeena Silk Mills Vs Income-Tax Officer 31(1)(1), Apurva Industrial Estate, Mumbai, Majwana Road, Marol Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra, Mumbai-400 059 Mumbai-400 051 Pan: Aabfs3210R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri H.N. MotiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui (SR.DR.)
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 50

actual cost thereof to the assessee as may be prescribed.” A combined reading of the provisions of section 41(2) and section 32(1)(i) makes it clear that provisions of section 41(2) are applicable only to those entities engaged in the business of generation or generation and distribution

DCIT 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Max Hospitals and Allied Services Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3085/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

that know-how, business contacts, business information, etc. acquired as part of the slump sale described as were not entitled for depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act?" and held that the intangible assets acquired under Slump Sale Agreement were in the nature of business ... commercial rights of similar nature specified in Section 32 (1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 19614 and eligible for depreciation under the said act. 12. In the case on hand, assessee has entered into various agreements with Central and State Government, etc. The assessee's agreement referred to hereinabove