← All Phrases

“Section 32(3)”

Section References (mined)Section 32Section 32(3)4 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 32(3) is CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd. (348 ITR 302), cited in 540 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 32(3)

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.

Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. v. CIT
373 ITR 673 · 2015 · Supreme Court
381
citing judgments

Income from immovable property, such as unsold flats or shops, held by an assessee as stock-in-trade in their business of acquiring and holding properties is taxable as 'business income' and not 'income from house property'. Consequently, notional annual letting value under Section 23 cannot be attributed to such stock-in-trade.

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.

Judgments citing Section 32(3)

Mr. 3 Sigma Global Fund, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Int Tax Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly we hold that the gain arising from the transfer of Derivatives cannot be taxed in India and the addition made in this regard stands deleted. Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is hereb...

ITA 1130/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Bhaumik Goda, ARFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

Taxman 562/255 ITR 273 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: "Even though the said section (Section 32(3) of the UTI Act, creates a fiction to make UTI as a deemed company and distribution of the income received by the unitholder as deemed dividend, by virtue ... cannot be said that it a/so makes the unit of UTI a deemed share. A deeming provision of this nature, as found in Section 32(3) (of the UTI Act) should be applied for the purposes for which the said deeming provision is specifically enacted, which in the instant case

Emerging India Focus Funds, Mauritius vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Taxation 1(2)(2), Delhi

ITA 1963/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: D : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH

Seabird Marine Services Private Limited, Jamnagar vs. ACIT, Circle - 1, Jamnagar, Jamangar

ITA 83/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 83/Rjt/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Seabird Marine Services Pvt. Vs. Ltd. Office No. 309 & 310, Centroid Luxuria, Nr. Crystal Mall, Khodiyar Colony, Aerodrome Road, Jamnagar 361006 Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Jamnagar, Aayakar Bhawan, Nr. Subhash Bridge, Jamnagar -Rajkot Highway, Jamnagar स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccs 9869 C (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S. N. Soparkar, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2025 Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: आदेश / Order Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Dehi/ Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [In Short 'Ld. Cit(A)'], Dated 02.01.2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer, Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), Vide Order Dated 31.12.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “All The Below Mentioned Grounds Of Appeal Are Independent & Without Prejudices To Each Other.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 114Section 115JSection 143(3)

selling of shares will have to be treated as a business of speculation. The revenue in support of this argument, relies on section 32(3) of the UTI Act which reads as follows : "(3) Subject to the foregoing sub-sections, for the purposes of the Income ... company amounts to a business of speculation. Both the Tribunal and the High Court have considered this argument as also the effect of section 32(3) of the UTI Act and have come to the conclusion that the provision of the said Act is limited for the purpose of assessment

Saket Kanoi, Gurgaon vs. DCIT Intl. Taxation, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3243/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Sunny Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

Tyres Ltd v CIT [2002J 122 Taxman 562 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: "Even though the said section (Section 32(3) of the UTI Act, creates a fiction to make UTI as a deemed company and distribution of the income received by the unitholder ... cannot be said that it a/so makes the unit of UTI a deemed share. A deeming provision of this nature, as found in Section 32(3) (of the UTI Act) should be applied for the purposes for which the said deeming provision is specifically enacted, which in the instant case