← All Phrases

“Section 32(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 32Section 32(2)106 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 32(2) is CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd. (348 ITR 302), cited in 540 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 32(2)

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.

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.

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.

Director of Income-tax (Exemption) v. Framjee Cawasjee Institute
109 CTR 463 · 1993 · High Court
191
citing judgments

A charitable trust is allowed to claim depreciation on its assets for computing its income, even if the capital expenditure incurred on acquiring those assets was treated as an application of income in the year of acquisition.

Challapalli Sugars Ltd. v. CIT
98 ITR 167 · 1975 · Supreme Court
185
citing judgments

Interest on borrowed capital utilized for acquiring a capital asset is capitalized until business commences. Once business is set up, this interest is deductible under section 36(1)(iii) even if the asset has not yet been put to use, accepting commercial accounting standards in the absence of contrary statutory provisions.

Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT
27 ITR 34 · 1955 · Supreme Court
174
citing judgments

The Supreme Court established the foundational test for distinguishing between capital and revenue expenditure, holding that the aim and object of the expenditure and whether it brings into existence an asset or an advantage of an enduring nature determines its character, irrespective of the payment method. An advantage lasting five years or more can be considered enduring.

Judgments citing Section 32(2)

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bengaluru vs. M/S.Ozone Properties Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 95/BANG/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Sept 2022AY 2014-2015

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Ozone Properties The Assistant Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 38, Ozone Group, Income Tax, Ulsoor Road, Central Circle – 2(1), Ulsoor, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 042. Pan: Aaaco6672M Appellant Respondent & C.O.No. 01/Bang/2022 (In Ita No. 95/Bang/2022) (By Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Kodandapani, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee & Revenue Against Order Dated 30.11.2021 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Kodandapani, CA
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 154

lower of brought forward cash loss or brought forward depreciation loss as per books of accounts. We find that provisions of Sections 32(2) and 72 of the Act explicitly provide that the amount would be carried forward for set off in the succeeding years and it should be arrived ... lower of brought forward cash loss or brought forward depreciation loss as per books of accounts. We find that provisions of Sections 32(2) and 72 of the Act explicitly provide that the amount would be carried forward for set off in the succeeding years and it should be arrived

M/S. Khoday India Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 97/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Khoday India Ltd., The Income-Tax 7Th Mile, Brewery House, Officer, Kanakapura Road, Ward 4 (1)(2), Bangalore – 560 062. Bangalore. Pan: Aaack6734C Vs. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Sridhar, Ca : Shri Ramesh B.R., Addl. Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 09/12/2021 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Bengaluru-11, Bengaluru In Ita No.Cit(A)- 11/Bng/Tr.10036/2018-19 (Din: Itba /Apl /M/ 250 /2021-22/ 1037634908(1) Dated:09.12.2021 Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities & Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Order Of The Assessing Officer Passed U/S.154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated:14.02.2018. 3. The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Not Directing The Assessing Officer To Set Off The Entire

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridhar, CA
Section 115BSection 154Section 68Section 71

introduced only with effect from 1.4.2017. Therefore, question whether set off permissible Page 9 of 11 under section 72(2) read with section 32(2) of the Act would apply with respect to the said income, assumes importance. There again, the crucial aspect relevant for consideration is the nature