← All Phrases

“Section 32(1)(u)”

Section References (mined)Section 32Section 32(1)(u)6 judgments

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BANGUR NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

ITA 1517/JPR/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dilip B. Desai, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 254Section 36(1)(va)Section 80Section 801A

Hence, AO is directed to grant depreciation @25% on such leasehold rights acquired of Rs. 14,93,25,916/- in accordance with section 32(1)(u) of the Act. The additional ground no. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed" Thus, the Hon'ble ITAT held that such intangible assets

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. EENADU TELEVISION PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 648/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 May 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri V. Siva Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

asset as it has no market value and therefore does not fall\nunder the ambit of the provisions of section 32(1)(U) of the Act?.\n3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in\nlaw, the CIT(A) was right and justified in following

EENADU TELEVISION PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 563/HYD/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 May 2025AY 2020-2021
For Appellant: Shri V. Siva Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

asset as it has no market value and therefore does not fall\nunder the ambit of the provisions of section 32(1)(U) of the Act?.\n3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in\nlaw, the CIT(A) was right and justified in following

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. EENADU TELEVISION PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 665/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 May 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri V. Siva Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

asset as it has no market value and therefore does not fall\nunder the ambit of the provisions of section 32(1)(U) of the Act?.\n\n3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in\nlaw, the CIT(A) was right and justified

ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. EENADU TELEVISION PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 654/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 May 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri V. Siva Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

asset as it has no market value and therefore does not fall\nunder the ambit of the provisions of section 32(1)(U) of the Act?.\n3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in\nlaw, the CIT(A) was right and justified in following

MANJU DUDALA,HYDERABAD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(3), HYDERABAD.

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 665/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri V. Siva Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

asset as it has no market value and therefore does not fall under the ambit of the provisions of section 32(1)(U) of the Act?. 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was right and justified in following