“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)

Aruna Alloy Steels Privates Limited, Madurai vs. ACIT, Corp. Circle-1, Madurai, Maduraiq

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2803/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Respondent: Mr.Ashwin D. Gowda

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 156Section 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)(iia) of the Act. As per the settled position of law, an assessee claiming exemption has to strictly and literally comply with the exemption

DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Aaykar Bhawan Vejalpur vs. Sabarkantha District Co-Operative Milk Producers Union Limited, Boria, Himatnagar

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1648/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. N. Dsouza, CIT DR & B.P. Srivastava

Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 80P(2)(d)

Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the observations made by the Ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order. 18. We observe that Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act provides for additional depreciation at the rate of 20% of actual cost to be claimed by the assessee in respect ... production of milk and milk products and therefore, fall under the head "plant and machinery" and are eligible for additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. It was submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of ITAT Ahmedabad in assessee

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(1) Ahmedabad, Aaykar Bhawan Vejalpur, Prahlad Nagar vs. Sabarkantha District Co-Operative Milk Poroducers Union Limited, Milk Producers Union

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1589/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. N. Dsouza, CIT DR & B.P. Srivastava

Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 80P(2)(d)

Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the observations made by the Ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order. 18. We observe that Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act provides for additional depreciation at the rate of 20% of actual cost to be claimed by the assessee in respect ... production of milk and milk products and therefore, fall under the head “plant and machinery” and are eligible for additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. It was submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of ITAT Ahmedabad in assessee

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Aaykar Bhawan Vejalpur vs. Sabarkantha District Co-Operative Milk Producers Union Limited, Milk Producers Union Limited

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1588/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. N. Dsouza, CIT DR & B.P. Srivastava

Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 80P(2)(d)

Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the observations made by the Ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order. 18. We observe that Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act provides for additional depreciation at the rate of 20% of actual cost to be claimed by the assessee in respect ... production of milk and milk products and therefore, fall under the head “plant and machinery” and are eligible for additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. It was submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of ITAT Ahmedabad in assessee

ACIT Non Corporate Circle 8(1)-Ltu-2, Chennai vs. M/S. Ashok Leyland Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 561/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 35Section 35(1)(iv)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

M/S. Ashok Leyland Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 8(1)-Ltu-2, Chennai

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

ITA 554/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 35Section 35(1)(iv)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-3(4), Mumbai vs. Lubrizol India Pvt Ltd, Thane

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

ITA 5955/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassistant Commissioner Of Vs Lubrizol India Pvt Ltd Income-Tax-3(4), Mumbai 9/3, Lubrizol India Private Limited- 5Th Room No.559, Floor, Plant, Thane Belapur Road, Turbhe Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate Naka, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai, Thane- Mumbai-400 020 400 705 Pan: Aaacl0126H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Paras Savla & Shri ShreyasFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia (SR DR)

Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 37Section 80G

transportation and 3 CO 288/Mum/2024 Lubrizol India Pvt Ltd industrial market. During the impugned assessment year, the assessee claimed the additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) amount to Rs.2,23,91,990/- which pertained to the plant & machinery put to use for F.Y. 2014-15 for less than ... from October, 2013 to March, 2014 on which depreciation was claimed @15% as per section 32 of the Act. In relation to section 32(1)(iia) of the act, the assessee has claimed depreciation in AY 2014-15 @20% of aforesaid machinery of Rs.15,45,70,133/- which comes

M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-8(1), Ltu-II, Chennai

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

ITA 2379/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.R. VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Mr.Nathala Ravi Babu, CIT

Section 14A

eligible for additional depreciation @ 11 which was eligible for additional depreciation @ 11 which was eligible for additional depreciation @ 20% in terms of Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. Since the new plant 20% in terms of Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. Since the new plant ... terms of Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. Since the new plant &machinery was put to use for less than 180 days in FY 2010 &machinery was put to use for less than 180 days in FY 2010 &machinery was put to use for less than 180 days

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CC-3(2), Central Range-3, Mumbai, Air India Building, Nariman Point vs. Aarti Durgs Limited, Sion (E)

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3071/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Nagar & Shri Vipul JainFor Respondent: Dr. K. R. Subash &

Section 139Section 14ASection 2(24)Section 250

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT & SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

DCIT CC 3(2), Central Range-3, Mumbai, Air India Building, Nariman Point vs. Aarti Durgs Limited, Sion (E)

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3070/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Nagar & Shri Vipul JainFor Respondent: Dr. K. R. Subash &

Section 139Section 14ASection 2(24)Section 250

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT & SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CC-3(2), Central Range-3, Mumbai, Air India Building, Nariman Point vs. Aarti Durgs Limited, Sion (E)

ITA 3068/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Nagar & Shri Vipul JainFor Respondent: Dr. K. R. Subash &

Section 139Section 14ASection 2(24)Section 250

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT & SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Saiphia Technology Private Limited, Bhopal vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 172/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Indore22 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Guptaassessment Year:2015-16 Saiphia Technology Private Nfac Limited, Delhi 1St Floor Ankit Plaza, बनाम/ Kolar Road, Vs. Near Nayapura Bus Stop, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aancs1814Q Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.01.2025

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40

disallowance of Rs. 32,31,505/- is the outcome of non-acceptance of claim of additional depreciation made by assessee in terms of section 32(1)(iia) before PCIT in revision-proceeding and also before AO in the proceeding of fresh assessment. Ld. AR submitted that identical claim was also

Star Paper Mills Limited, Kolkata vs. PCIT - 2, Kolkata

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

ITA 1155/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, Dr

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(3)Section 263Section 32(1)(iia)

depreciable at the rate of 80% and also eligible for additional depreciation at the rate of 20% in consonance with the provisions of Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. The Id. AR submitted before the Id. PCIT that plant and machinery was put to use less than 180 days ... current year. In other words, the assessee again claimed depreciation at the rate of 80% under the normal provision and 20% under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. Therefore, we do not find any anomaly or mistake in the claim of the assessee. Accordingly, the order passed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(2), Delhi, I.P.Estate vs. Bureau Veritas Consumer Products Services(India) Pvt. Ltd., Lajpat Nagar

ITA 3158/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2013-14] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.63/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3157/Chny2017) [Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner Of Dalmiapuram, Income Tax, Circle-1, Tamilnadu-621651 Vs Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan- Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2014-15] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

respectively is regarding the decision of Ld. CIT(A) in allowing the appellant’s claim of additional deprecation under section 32(1)(iia). We have noted that the issue for the two years is based on identical facts and hence decision taken qua ITA No.3157 for AY 2013-14 shall

ACIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Hinduja National Power Corporation Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

ITA 235/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.235/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) The Assistant M/S. Hinduja National Power Commissioner Of Income Vs. Corporation Ltd. Tax, Circle 2(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch2426D अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K. A. Sai Prasad, C.A. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr.

For Appellant: Shri K. A. Sai Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 32ASection 92C

investment allowance under section 32AD for ₹358.44 crore was disallowed, citing non-eligibility for manufacturing benefits. Additionally, excess depreciation of ₹271.70 crore under section 32(1)(iia) was disallowed as the assessee was entitled to depreciation only at 20% for assets used for less than 180 days, instead ... deduction claimed under section 32AD of the Act as well. It was submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) had allowed the benefit of Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act, whereby the additional depreciation @ 20% was allowed. The CIT-DR for the purpose of proving the case of the assessee

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-5(4), Mumbai vs. Larsen and Toubro Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3369/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt Beena Pillaishri Omkareshwar Chidara

Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 48Section 50B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

The DCIT, Circle-1(1), Now Circle-1(1)(1), Baroda vs. Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd., Baroda

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 3164/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 28Section 37Section 43(1)

Appeals) erred in law and on facts has confirmed the disallowance of the additional depreciation amounting to Rs.55,03,67,064/- claimed under section 32(1)(iia) of the IT Act on the ground that the appellant is not engaged in the manufacturing or production of article or thing. I.T.A ... Paragraphs-11 and 12 of its impugned order are as under:- 11. We may note that the expression 'article or thing' used in section 32(1)(iia) is not defined in the IT Act, 1961. The Supreme Court in case of State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. NTPC

Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd., Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1), Baroda

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 3124/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 28Section 37Section 43(1)

Robert Bosch Engineering and Business Solutions Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Tax Payers Unit, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 593/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Sridhar E, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 115Section 115JSection 237Section 80J

appeal, is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of the claim for additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. 17. The assessee, in its return of income, claimed additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act on computers used ... fact the appellant offered software development as a service and had shown revenue there from in the account. In so far as section 32(1)(iia) is concerned, it covers the assesses who are engaged in manufacture or production of article or thing only. Provision of services for development

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2, Ltu, Bengaluru vs. M/S. Robert Bosch Engineering and Business Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 446/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Sridhar E, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 115Section 115JSection 237Section 80J