“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)

Akar Laminators Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 600/AHD/2023[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2001-02

Bench: This Tribunal & The Case Was Set-Aside Vide Order Dated 01.08.2014 In Ita No. 858 & 927/Ahd/2005 & Accordingly Assessment Was Finalized U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Act & The Total Loss Was Determined At (-) Rs.22,47,26,293/- After Making Following Additions/Disallowances:

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Penalty - For concealment of income (Disallowance of claim of depreciation) - Assessment year 2011-12 - Assessee claimed additional depreciation for plant and machinery under section 32(1)(iia) on strength of Tax Audit Report - Assessing Officer disallowed claim on ground that production had been started in current year by assessee

Addl.CIT, Special Range-4, New Delhi vs. Idemitsu Lube India P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7950/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Addl.Cit, Vs M/S. Idemitsu Lube Pvt.Ltd., Special Range-04, 603, 6Th Floor, Eros New Delhi Corporate Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019. Pan-Aabci5684A Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 32(1)(iia)Section 32A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “C” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K.BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL

Diadora Shoes Pvt Ltd, Calicut vs. ACIT Circle 2(1), Calicut

In the result, the assessee’sappeal is allowed

ITA 213/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasdiadora Shoes Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Cit, Circle - 2 Vkc Tower, Kolathra P.O Calicut 673001 Vs. Calicut 673655 [Pan:Aabcd9692D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Venugopal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Shri Manomohan Das, Judicial

M/S.Cochin Shipyard Ltd, Kochi vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 654/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Mar 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dascochin Shipyard Ltd. Dy. Cit, Corporate Circle 1(1) Administrative Building C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road Shipyard Premises Kochi 682018 Vs. Perumanoor P.O. Kochi 682015 [Pan:Aaacc6905B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Radhesh L. Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Shri Manomohan Das, Judicial

DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2959/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Fenil Bhatt a/wFor Respondent: Shri Vachashpati Tripathi

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 37(1)

claimed additional depreciation @10% on the fixed assets acquired during the financial year 2013-14 amounting to Rs.2,86,47,976 under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. Accordingly, the assessee was asked to explain the allowability of additional depreciation so claimed. In response thereto, the assessee submitted that ... section 32(1)(iia) of the Act, the assessee is entitled to claim 20% additional depreciation on any new plant and machinery acquired after 31/03/2005. It was further submitted that as per the provision to section 32(ii)(b), if the assets are put to use for less than

Asian Paints Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT Ltu, Mumbai

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

ITA 1673/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Fenil Bhatt a/wFor Respondent: Shri Vachashpati Tripathi

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 37(1)

DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 840/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Vachashpati Tripathi

Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 250

assessee has claimed additional depreciation @10% on assets acquired during the financial year 2012-13 amounting to Rs.70,31,74,747 under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. Accordingly, the assessee was asked to explain the allowability of additional depreciation so claimed. In response thereto, the assessee submitted that ... section 32(1)(iia) of the Act, the assessee is entitled to claim 20% additional depreciation on any new plant and machinery acquired after 31/03/2005. It was further submitted that as per the provision to section 32(ii)(b), if the assets are put to use for less than

Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai

The appeal is dismissed holding that the learned CIT appeal is correct in allowing

ITA 269/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Vachashpati Tripathi

Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 250

DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 841/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailasian Paints Ltd. Asian Paints House 6A, Shanti Nagar, Santacruz (East) Mumbai 400 055 Pan – Aaaca3622K Appellant Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Mumbai V/S

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Vachashpati Tripathi

Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 268/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailasian Paints Ltd. Asian Paints House

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Vachashpati Tripathi

Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5934/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Vachashpati Tripathi

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5363/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Us.

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14A

ASIAN PAINTS LTD. ITA NO.5363/MUM./2017 ITA NO.5934/MUM./2017 ("the Act") by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-55

Supermax Personal Care P. Ltd., Thane vs. Dy CIT -3(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed in above terms

ITA 687/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Gupta & Shri AjinkyaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Ld. DR

Section 250Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 92C

working capital employed by the Assessee vis a vis comparable companies. Addition on account of corporate tax adjustments Disallowance of additional depreciation under section 32(1) (iia) of the Act amounting to INR 3, 43,808/- 10. erred in disallowing 50% of the additional depreciation ... claimed under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act, by holding that such claim of 50% of the additional depreciation is not allowable in the immediately succeeding year to which the asset is put to use for less than 180 days. Supermax Personal Care Pvt. Ltd., 11. erred