← All Phrases

“Section 32(1)(iia)”

Section References (mined)Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)263 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 32(1)(iia) is Vijaya Bank v. CIT (323 ITR 166), cited in 392 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 32(1)(iia)

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.

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.

CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd.
341 ITR 385 · 2012 · High Court
270
citing judgments

A provision for doubtful debts cannot be added back while computing book profits under Section 115JB of the Income-tax Act for Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) purposes.

Tata Consultancy Services v. State of Andhra Pradesh
271 ITR 401 · 2004 · Supreme Court
231
citing judgments

The sale of 'canned software' in physical form is the sale of a copyrighted article and constitutes 'goods,' distinct from the underlying copyright. This case provides foundational principles for distinguishing copyrighted works from copyrighted articles and for what qualifies as 'production or manufacturing of goods or articles' under tax laws.

CIT v. N.C. Budharaja & Co.
204 ITR 412 · 1993 · Supreme Court
164
citing judgments

The word 'production' has a wider connotation than 'manufacture'; every manufacture is production, but not every production amounts to manufacture. 'Production' includes bringing into existence new goods, by-products, or inter-products through a process, which may or may not be manufacture.

CIT v. Faizan Shoes (P.) Ltd.
367 ITR 155 · 2014 · High Court
139
citing judgments

Disallowance under section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of tax at source on export agency commission paid to a non-resident does not apply if the non-resident's income is not taxable in India under section 9(1), such as when the agent operates outside India without a permanent establishment or business connection in India.

CIT v. Rittal India (P) Limited
380 ITR 423 · 2016 · High Court
121
citing judgments

Additional depreciation is allowable under section 32(1)(iia) for new machinery or plant even when put to use for less than 180 days, with the unabsorbed balance available for claim in the subsequent year.

Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. v. CIT
144 ITR 474 · 1983 · High Court
119
citing judgments

The Calcutta High Court held that a lump sum revenue expenditure, which is of a significant amount and provides benefits spread over several years, can be allowed as a deduction proportionately over the period of benefit. This approach prevents distortion of the profits of a single assessment year.

Judgments citing Section 32(1)(iia)

Ambuja Cements Ltd ( Formerly Known As Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is thus dismissed

ITA 2428/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2006-07
Section 115JSection 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

ITA Nos.2968/Mum/2015 & 1665/Mum/2019 ITA Nos. 3307/Mum/2015 & 2428/Mum/2019 Assessment years: 2008-09 and 2009-10 Page 1 of 51 THE INCOME

Nippo Batteries Company Ltd(Now Indo National Ltd), Chennai vs. ACIT, CC 4(2), Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 927/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR. V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143Section 234BSection 32(1)(iia)Section 35Section 35(2)(A)Section 40Section 40ASection 40A(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘ए’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय +ी महावीर िसंह

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

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

ITA 1601/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1601/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Bharat Petroleum बिधम/ Pcit, Circle-2 Corporation Ltd. Room No.344, Aayakar Vs. Taxation Section, Bhavan, M. K. Road, 4Th Floor, Bharat Bhavan 1, Mumbai-400020. 4 & 6 Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400001. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb2902M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Jehangir D. Mistry Revenue By: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-02 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”], Mumbai Dated 21.02.2020 For Assessment Year [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ay”] 2016-17 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”].

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D. MistryFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)
Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 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)(iia

DCIT Cent. Cir. 5(2), Mumbai vs. Ipca Laboratories Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 5227/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR
Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

assets acquired and installed during the FY 2006-07 (immediately preceding FY to the current FY under consideration) ignoring the express provisions of section 32(1)(iia) of the Act which specifically stats that additional depreciation shall be allowed only on assets acquired and installed during the previous year ... Income tax (Appeals). 044. The facts show that the assessee has acquired certain assets, which were entitled for additional depreciation according to Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act in the second half of the immediately preceding year. As the assessee has put to use those assets for less than

Ipca Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 3811/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR
Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

assets acquired and installed during the FY 2006-07 (immediately preceding FY to the current FY under consideration) ignoring the express provisions of section 32(1)(iia) of the Act which specifically stats that additional depreciation shall be allowed only on assets acquired and installed during the previous year ... Income tax (Appeals). 044. The facts show that the assessee has acquired certain assets, which were entitled for additional depreciation according to Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act in the second half of the immediately preceding year. As the assessee has put to use those assets for less than

Asst CIT (Ltu) 1, Mumbai vs. Ipca Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 3691/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR
Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

assets acquired and installed during the FY 2006-07 (immediately preceding FY to the current FY under consideration) ignoring the express provisions of section 32(1)(iia) of the Act which specifically stats that additional depreciation shall be allowed only on assets acquired and installed during the previous year ... Income tax (Appeals). 044. The facts show that the assessee has acquired certain assets, which were entitled for additional depreciation according to Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act in the second half of the immediately preceding year. As the assessee has put to use those assets for less than

Ipca Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 3597/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR
Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

assets acquired and installed during the FY 2006-07 (immediately preceding FY to the current FY under consideration) ignoring the express provisions of section 32(1)(iia) of the Act which specifically stats that additional depreciation shall be allowed only on assets acquired and installed during the previous year ... Income tax (Appeals). 044. The facts show that the assessee has acquired certain assets, which were entitled for additional depreciation according to Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act in the second half of the immediately preceding year. As the assessee has put to use those assets for less than

DCIT (Ltu) 1, Mumbai vs. Ipca Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 2815/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR
Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

assets acquired and installed during the FY 2006-07 (immediately preceding FY to the current FY under consideration) ignoring the express provisions of section 32(1)(iia) of the Act which specifically stats that additional depreciation shall be allowed only on assets acquired and installed during the previous year ... Income tax (Appeals). 044. The facts show that the assessee has acquired certain assets, which were entitled for additional depreciation according to Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act in the second half of the immediately preceding year. As the assessee has put to use those assets for less than

Ipca Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 2493/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR
Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

assets acquired and installed during the FY 2006-07 (immediately preceding FY to the current FY under consideration) ignoring the express provisions of section 32(1)(iia) of the Act which specifically stats that additional depreciation shall be allowed only on assets acquired and installed during the previous year ... Income tax (Appeals). 044. The facts show that the assessee has acquired certain assets, which were entitled for additional depreciation according to Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act in the second half of the immediately preceding year. As the assessee has put to use those assets for less than

Ipca Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 3267/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR
Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

assets acquired and installed during the FY 2006-07 (immediately preceding FY to the current FY under consideration) ignoring the express provisions of section 32(1)(iia) of the Act which specifically stats that additional depreciation shall be allowed only on assets acquired and installed during the previous year ... Income tax (Appeals). 044. The facts show that the assessee has acquired certain assets, which were entitled for additional depreciation according to Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act in the second half of the immediately preceding year. As the assessee has put to use those assets for less than

Ipca Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT (Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 8120/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR
Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

assets acquired and installed during the FY 2006-07 (immediately preceding FY to the current FY under consideration) ignoring the express provisions of section 32(1)(iia) of the Act which specifically stats that additional depreciation shall be allowed only on assets acquired and installed during the previous year ... Income tax (Appeals). 044. The facts show that the assessee has acquired certain assets, which were entitled for additional depreciation according to Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act in the second half of the immediately preceding year. As the assessee has put to use those assets for less than

Ipca Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 8084/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR
Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

assets acquired and installed during the FY 2006-07 (immediately preceding FY to the current FY under consideration) ignoring the express provisions of section 32(1)(iia) of the Act which specifically stats that additional depreciation shall be allowed only on assets acquired and installed during the previous year ... Income tax (Appeals). 044. The facts show that the assessee has acquired certain assets, which were entitled for additional depreciation according to Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act in the second half of the immediately preceding year. As the assessee has put to use those assets for less than

ACIT Cen Cir 13, Mumbai vs. Ipca Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 7511/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR
Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

assets acquired and installed during the FY 2006-07 (immediately preceding FY to the current FY under consideration) ignoring the express provisions of section 32(1)(iia) of the Act which specifically stats that additional depreciation shall be allowed only on assets acquired and installed during the previous year ... Income tax (Appeals). 044. The facts show that the assessee has acquired certain assets, which were entitled for additional depreciation according to Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act in the second half of the immediately preceding year. As the assessee has put to use those assets for less than

DCIT Circle- 1, Thane vs. M/S Everest Industries Ltd, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly

ITA 554/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh Chaitanya Joshi &For Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “E” : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE

Everest Industrial Ltd., Noida vs. Dy CIT Circle-1, Thane

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly

ITA 7791/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh Chaitanya Joshi &For Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “E” : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE

M/S. Bosch Limited, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 475/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32ASection 35

assets are not acquired and installed during the current year. In this context, the Hon'ble Tribunal after considering the provisions of section 32(1)(iia) of the Act allowed the claim of the assessee in the second year, despite the fact that in the literal sense, the assets were ... assessee with regard to the words “acquires and installs” contained in section 32AC and is similar to the wordings “acquired and installed” in section 32(1)(iia) and therefore the decisions rendered in the context of section 32(1)(iia) would be applicable for deduction u/s.32AC also. The AO after

M/S Te Connectivity India Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Circle-1, Bengaluru

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

ITA 2680/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Sumeet Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.S. Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 92

fact that the assets purchased during the year under consideration and categorised under the block 'plant and machinery' satisfied the conditions specified under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act, as certified in the tax audit report issued by the Chartered Accountant and accordingly the Appellant was eligible to claim

M/S. Syngene International Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range- 6, Bangalore

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

ITA 148/BANG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 10ASection 10BSection 14ASection 250Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80

allowing the alternative claim of deduction under section 80-IB(SA) of the Act. 4. Disallowance of claim for additional depreciation made under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act 4.1 The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not allowing the additional depreciation on plant ... take note of the details of additional depreciation schedule submitted during the appellate proceedings and asset wise details on which depreciation claimed under section 32(1)(iia) furnished during the course of the assessment proceedings, which clearly substantiates the details of assets eligible for additional depreciation under section 32(1

Tata International Ltd ( for Erstwhile Bachi Shoes Ltd), Vellore vs. ACIT Circle 1, Vellore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1523/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Tata International Limited V. Acit – Circle – 1 {Erstwhile Bachi Shoes Ltd} No.2, 2Nd Floor No. 147, Sidco Industrial Estate Central Revenue Building Sipcot, Ranipet – 632403 Barracks Cross Street Officers Line, Vellore -632001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Aastha Shah Department By : Shri Rajesh Damor Date Of Hearing : 02.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2022 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman (Am) 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–13, Chennai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 05.03.2018 For The A.Y. 2013-14. 2. Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds In Its Appeal: - “The Appellant Objects To The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)'S Order Dismissing The Appeal Against The Assessment Order, For 2013-14 Aly I) Omitting To Reduce The Adjustments Of Rs. 5,69,560 U/S 145A As Per Letter Dated 25.2.2016;

For Appellant: Ms. Aastha ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Damor
Section 145ASection 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND

M/S. Syngene International Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range- 6, Bangalore

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

ITA 147/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sri Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sumer Singh Meena, DR
Section 10ASection 10BSection 14ASection 250Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80

deduction under section 80-IB(8A) of the Act while passing the order. 4. Disallowance of claim for additional depreciation made under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act 4.1 The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not allowing the additional depreciation on plant ... depreciation schedule submitted during the appellate proceedings and in the course of the assessment proceedings, which substantiates the claim of additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. 5 Addition under section 14A of the Act 5.1 The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts