← All Phrases

“Section 41(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 41Section 41(2)74 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 41(2) is CIT v. Indo Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd. (261 ITR 275), cited in 204 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 41(2)

CIT v. Indo Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd.
261 ITR 275 · 2003 · Supreme Court
204
citing judgments

A liability recognized in accordance with the Accounting Standards prescribed by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) is an allowable expense for income tax purposes.

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. CIT
261 ITR 501 · 2003 · High Court
147
citing judgments

Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act cannot be invoked if the assessee has not been granted a deduction for the relevant liability in earlier years.

Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
201 ITR 684 · 1993 · Supreme Court
133
citing judgments

Compensatory interest or damages paid for a breach of contract, arising in the normal course of business, are allowable as a deduction under section 37(1) as wholly and exclusively incurred for business purposes. This principle extends to indirect taxes paid in the course of business, which are admissible as business expenditure.

CIT v. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd.
341 ITR 467 · 2012 · High Court
108
citing judgments

The Legislature abolished terminal depreciation under section 32(1)(iii) and the taxing of balancing charge under section 41(2), replacing these provisions with the requirement to reduce sale proceeds of depreciable assets from the block of assets.

LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT
140 ITD 41 · 2013 · ITAT
107
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer or Transfer Pricing Officer can benchmark Advertisement, Marketing, and Promotion (AMP) expenses as an international transaction if it creates or is intended to create economic or commercial benefit for an associated enterprise. The 'bright line' method can be used for this purpose.

DCIT v. Bank of Bahrain & Kuwait
41 SOT 290 · 2010 · ITAT
81
citing judgments

Mark-to-Market (MTM) losses on forward contracts and forex derivatives are allowable as a revenue deduction under Section 37(1) where a binding obligation is created against the assessee. This is provided the assessee consistently follows the same accounting method for both profits and losses.

CIT v. Varas International
284 ITR 80 · Supreme Court
79
citing judgments

An appellate authority can admit additional legal grounds for the first time, even if not raised earlier, provided these grounds are purely legal, go to the root of the matter, and the relevant facts for their adjudication are already on record.

CIT v. Pfizer Ltd.
330 ITR 62 · 2011 · High Court
78
citing judgments

An insurance claim received on stock in trade constitutes business income and is not an independent source of income.

Judgments citing Section 41(2)

Jewelex India Priavte Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle-14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5285/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarjewelex India Private V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 401 Trade Centre, Bandra 14(1)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Kurla Complex, Bandra Maharishi Karve Marg, (East), Mumbai – 400 098, Mumbai – 400 020, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcj4523H Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, (Sr. DR)
Section 135Section 143(3)Section 37Section 37(1)Section 43(6)(c)Section 80G

Jewelex India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai In the instant case, the AO could have examined the applicability of section 41(2) for taxing the quantum of depreciation claimed on building in earlier years, which we don't know whether he had examined or not. For ready reference, the said section

JCIT Cent. Cir. - 1(4), Mumbai vs. Grasim Industries Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1561/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar / Ms SukanyaFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 153CSection 250Section 43BSection 80I

recordkeeping. Moreover, the practice of granting the terminal allowance as per section 32(1)(iii) or taxing the balancing charge as per section 41(2) of the Income-tax Act necessitate the keeping of records of depreciation already availed of by each asset eligible for depreciation. In order to simplify ... depreciation in respect of each asset, which was previ- ously allowable under section 32(1) (iii) and also taxing of balancing charge under section 41(2) in the year of sale. Instead of these two provisions, now whatever is the sale-proceed of sale of any depreciable asset

Grasim Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. - 1(4), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1056/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 153CSection 250Section 43BSection 80I

recordkeeping. Moreover, the practice of granting the terminal allowance as per Section 32(1)(iii) or taxing the balancing charge as per Section 41(2) of the Income-tax Act necessitate the keeping of records of depreciation already availed of by each asset eligible for depreciation. In order to simplify ... depreciation in respect of each asset, which was previ- ously allowable under Section 32(1) (iii) and also taxing of balancing charge under Section 41(2) in the year of sale. Instead of these two provisions, now whatever is the sale-proceed of sale of any depreciable asset

Dy..C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S State Bank of Mysore, Bangalore

ITA 684/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl. Counsel
Section 2Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41(1)

case of Nectar Beverages (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2009] 314 ITR 314 (SC) wherein the Supreme Court has dealt with the specific section 41(2) of the Act for taxing balancing charge versus taxing the same under section 41(1) of the Act and has concluded that section 41

State Bank of Mysore, Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

ITA 661/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl. Counsel
Section 2Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41(1)

case of Nectar Beverages (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2009] 314 ITR 314 (SC) wherein the Supreme Court has dealt with the specific section 41(2) of the Act for taxing balancing charge versus taxing the same under section 41(1) of the Act and has concluded that section 41

Lupin Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3257/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2019-20 Lupin Limited, Principal Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Kalpataru Inspire, Income Tax-3, Off Western Express Highway, Vs. Room No. 612, 6Th Floor, Santacruz (East), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400055. Maharshi Karve Road, Pan : Aaacl1069K Mumbai-400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora & Shri Pranay Gandhi Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 43(6)

assessee, the insurance claim amount has to be reduced from the block of asset and any excess shall be charged as capital gains. Section 41(2) now substituted by section 50 would treat moneys payable on an asset which is discarded, demolished or destroyed as an amount received on sale

Sabeena Silk Mills, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 31(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1508/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narndra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjeesabeena Silk Mills Vs Income-Tax Officer 31(1)(1), Apurva Industrial Estate, Mumbai, Majwana Road, Marol Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra, Mumbai-400 059 Mumbai-400 051 Pan: Aabfs3210R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri H.N. MotiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui (SR.DR.)
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 50

deeming fiction in section 50. Otherwise, the gains from the sale of business asset were business income in terms of section 41(2) of the Act and therefore the brought forward loss was eligible to be set-off against the business income. The assessee relied on the decision of Madras ... case of M/s. Share Aids Private Ltd. 11. Section 41(2) of the Act provides that gain, to the extent not exceeding the difference between actual cost and WDV arising from sale of asset on which depreciation is claimed u/s 32(1)(i) of the Act, shall be treated

Dy..C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S State Bank of Mysore, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue Ground-3 is dismissed

ITA 683/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl. Counsel
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 41(1)Section 41(4)

case of Nectar Beverages (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2009] 314 ITR 314 (SC) wherein the Supreme Court has dealt with the specific section 41(2) of the Act for taxing balancing charge versus taxing the same under section 41(1) of the Act and has concluded that section 41

State Bank of Mysore, Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue Ground-3 is dismissed

ITA 660/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjeestate Bank Of India Vs Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax, (Erstwhile State Bank Of Large Tax Payers Unit, Bangalore Mysore Prior To Merger) Local Head Office Compliance Department, 4Th Floor, 65, St. Marks Road, Bangalore-560 001 Pan: Aaccs0155P Appellant Respondent Deputy Commissioner Of Vs State Bank Of Mysore Income-Tax, Ltu, Circle-1, Head Office, Finance & Accounts Bangalore Department, Kg Road, Bangalore- 560 009 Pan: Aaccs0155P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl. Counsel
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 41(1)Section 41(4)

case of Nectar Beverages (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2009] 314 ITR 314 (SC) wherein the Supreme Court has dealt with the specific section 41(2) of the Act for taxing balancing charge versus taxing the same under section 41(1) of the Act and has concluded that section 41

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Kishore Kumar Jain, Chennai

ITA 2849/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2847, 2848 & 2849 /Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2016-17 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -2 (2), Chennai. Vs. Kishore Kumar Jain, 62, Bvk Sampath Road, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007. [Pan: Aahpj-0401-H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Mr. Shivanand K Kalakeri, Cit Mr. B.Ramakrishnan, F.C.A. : 13.03.2025 : 26.05.2025 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai, All Dated 10.09.2024 & Pertains To Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2016-17. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Being Heard Together & Disposed Of, By This Consolidated Order. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Common Grounds Of Appeal For All The

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 250

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'ए' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 'A' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री एस एस विश्वनेत्र रवि

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Kishore Kumar Jain, Chennai

In the result the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2848/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2847, 2848 & 2849 /Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2016-17 Assistant Commissioner Of Kishore Kumar Jain, Income Tax, Vs. 62, Bvk Sampath Road, Central Circle -2 (2), Vepery, Chennai. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan: Aahpj-0401-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Shivanand K Kalakeri, CITFor Respondent: Mr. B.Ramakrishnan, F.C.A
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 250

while dealing with the expression 'accumulated profits' under Section 2(22)(e) held that the profits assessable by way of legal fiction under Section 41(2) could not be deemed to be part of 'accumulated profits' as the same could not be considered as profits in the commercial sense. Therefore ... while dealing with the expression 'accumulated profits' under Section 2(22)(e) held that the profits assessable by way of legal fiction under Section 41(2) could not be deemed to be part of 'accumulated profits' as the same could not be considered as profits in the commercial sense. Therefore

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Kishore Kumar Jain, Chennai

ITA 2847/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2847, 2848 & 2849 /Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2016-17 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -2 (2), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Kishore Kumar Jain, Vs.62, Bvk Sampath Road, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007. [Pan: Aahpj-0401-H] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Mr. Shivanand K Kalakeri, Cit Mr. B.Ramakrishnan, F.C.A. 13.03.2025 26.05.2025 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai, All Dated 10.09.2024 & Pertains To Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2016-17. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Being Heard Together & Disposed Of, By This Consolidated Order. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Common Grounds Of Appeal For All The

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 250

while dealing with the expression 'accumulated profits' under Section 2(22)(e) held that the profits assessable by way of legal fiction under Section 41(2) could not be deemed to be part of 'accumulated profits' as the same could not be considered as profits in the commercial sense. Therefore

JCIT (OSD)Cen Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Grasim Industires Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly

ITA 3334/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri N.K. Billaiya, Am

Section 37(1)Section 40Section 8O

record- keeping. Moreover, the practice of granting the terminal allowance as per section 32(1)(iii) or taxing the balancing charge as per section 41(2) of the Income-tax Act necessitate the keeping of records of depreciation already availed of by each asset eligible for depreciation. In order ... depreciation in respect of each asset, which was previ- ously allowable under section 32(1) (iii) and also taxing of balancing charge under section 41(2) in the year of sale. Instead of these two provisions, now 10 ITA No.2224 & 3334/Mum/2016 A.Y. 2009-10 Grasim Industries Ltd. whatever

Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2224/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri N.K. Billaiya, Am M/S Grasim Industries Ltd. Dcit, (Corporate Finance Division) Central Circle 1(4), A-2, Aditya Birla Centre, Vs. Room No. 902, S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, Old Cgo Building, Mumbai - 400030 Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacg 4464B Dcit, M/S Grasim Industries Ltd. Central Circle 1(4), (Corporate Finance Division) Room No. 902, A-2, Aditya Birla Centre, Old Cgo Building, Vs. S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai - 400030 Appellant By : Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. Advocate, Shri Madhur Agarwal & Respondent By : Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit(Dr) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT(DR)
Section 37(1)Section 40Section 80I

record- keeping. Moreover, the practice of granting the terminal allowance as per section 32(1)(iii) or taxing the balancing charge as per section 41(2) of the Income-tax Act necessitate the keeping of records of depreciation already availed of by each asset eligible for depreciation. In order ... depreciation in respect of each asset, which was previ- ously allowable under section 32(1) (iii) and also taxing of balancing charge under section 41(2) in the year of sale. Instead of these two provisions, now A.Y. 2009-10 Grasim Industries Ltd. whatever is the sale-proceed of sale

ACIT 6(3), Mumbai vs. Grasim Industires Ltd, Mumbai

In the result Revenue's appeal is dismissed

ITA 6758/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri N.K. Billaiya, Am

Section 36(1)(va)

record-keeping. Moreover, the practice of granting the terminal allowance as per section 32(1)(iii) or taxing the balancing charge as per section 41(2) of the Income-tax Act necessitate the keeping of records of depreciation already availed of by each asset eligible for depreciation. In order ... terminal depreciation in respect of each asset, which was previously allowable under section 32(1) (iii) and also taxing of balancing charge under section 41(2) in the year of sale. Instead of these two provisions, now whatever is the sale-proceed of sale of any depreciable asset

The ACIT, Cochin vs. M/S.Pvr Tourist Home, Cochin

ITA 428/COCH/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Circle-1, Non-Corporate .......... Appellant Iind Floor, C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road Ernakulam 682018 Vs. Pvr Tourist Home .......... Respondent Palarivattom, Kochi 682025 [Pan: Aadfp3442Q] Appellant By: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, Cit-Dr Respondent By: Shri Mohan Pulickal, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.03.2025

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Mohan Pulickal, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 45(4)Section 48Section 50Section 50(1)Section 50A

case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Urmila Ramesh [1998] 230 ITR 422 (SC) rendered in the context of provisions of section 41(2) read with provisions of section 2(22)(c) of the Act. 11 PVT Tourist Home 14. In the above terms, the appeal filed by Revenue stands

ACIT 6(3), Mumbai vs. Grasim Industries Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4385/MUM/2009[2006-07]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2006-07
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 43B

record-keeping. Moreover, the practice of granting the terminal allowance as per section 32(1)(iii) or taxing the balancing charge as per section 41(2) of the Income-tax Act necessitate the keeping of records of depreciation already availed of by each asset eligible for depreciation. In order ... terminal depreciation in respect of each asset, which was previously allowable under section 32(1) (iii) and also taxing of balancing charge under section 41(2) in the year of sale. Instead of these two provisions, now whatever is the sale-proceed of sale of any depreciable asset

Grasim Industries Ltd ( Corporate Finance Division), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 6(3), Mumbai

ITA 3762/MUM/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistry Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kishor Dhule
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 43B

record-keeping. Moreover, the practice of granting the terminal allowance as per section 32(1)(iii) or taxing the balancing charge as per section 41(2) of the Income-tax Act necessitate the keeping of records of depreciation already availed of by each asset eligible for depreciation. In order ... terminal depreciation in respect of each asset, which was previously allowable under section 32(1) (iii) and also taxing of balancing charge under section 41(2) in the year of sale. Instead of these two provisions, now whatever is the sale-proceed of sale of any depreciable asset

ACIT 6(3), Mumbai vs. Grasim Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 6307/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri N.K. Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT(DR)

record-keeping. Moreover, the practice of granting the terminal allowance as per section 32(1)(iii) or taxing the balancing charge as per section 41(2) of the Income-tax Act necessitate the keeping of records of depreciation already availed of by each asset eligible for depreciation. In order ... depreciation in respect of each asset, which was previ- ously allowable under section 32(1) (iii) and also taxing of balancing charge under section 41(2) in the year of sale. Instead of these two provisions, now whatever is the sale-proceed of sale of any depreciable asset

Grasim Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 5925/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri N.K. Billaiya, Am

record-keeping. Moreover, the practice of granting the terminal allowance as per section 32(1)(iii) or taxing the balancing charge as per section 41(2) of the Income-tax Act necessitate the keeping of records of depreciation already availed of by each asset eligible for depreciation. In order ... depreciation in respect of each asset, which was previ- ously allowable under section 32(1) (iii) and also taxing of balancing charge under section 41(2) in the year of sale. Instead of these two provisions, now whatever is the sale-proceed of sale of any depreciable asset