← All Phrases

“Section 2(32)”

Section References (mined)Section 2Section 2(32)5 judgments

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

Leading authorities on Section 2(32)

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 2(32)

Ramsamy Pongianna Gounder Desamani, Pallipalayam vs. Itd, Ward 2, Tiruchengode

ITA 2438/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:2438/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Late. Ramasamy Pongianna Gounder Desamani, (Represented By Legal Heir Shri. P.D.Balachandhran) 79, R.P.Street, Sankari Bye-Pass Road, R.P.Street,\Pallipalayam – 638 006. [Pan:Acqpd-3208-H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Ito, Vs. Ward -2, Tiruchengode. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. T. S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.A. : Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2025 : 16.10.2025 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, [Herein After “Ld. Cit(A)] Dated 16.07.2024 & Pertains To Assessment Year 2011-12. :-2-:

For Respondent: Shri. T. S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.A
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(22)(e)Section 250

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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -1(2)(1)Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Madhusudhan Babubhai Kocha, Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 3516/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Jm) & Shri Girish Agrawal (Am)

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(32)

time during the previous year, beneficially entitled to not less than twenty per cent of the income of such concern]" Further, Section 2(32) of the Act defines 'substantial interest in a company' and this section is reproduced below:- Section 2(32) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 states

Apeejay Surrendre Management Services Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-8(1), Kolkata

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 988/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

Under these facts of the case, provision as contained in section 2(22)(e) and the definition of substantial inter- est contained in section 2(32) of the Act, the beneficial ownership of shares is with KSWPL. 8.1. Keeping the intention in mind while enactment of section 2

Apeejay Surrendra Management Services Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-8(1), Kolkata

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 987/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

Under these facts of the case, provision as contained in section 2(22)(e) and the definition of substantial inter- est contained in section 2(32) of the Act, the beneficial ownership of shares is with KSWPL. 8.1. Keeping the intention in mind while enactment of section 2

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Cenrtalcircle-1, Visakhapatnam vs. Vijaynagar Food and Nutraceuticals Pvt Ltd, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 246/VIZ/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 246/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Vijaynagar Food & Income Tax, Nutraceuticals Pvt Ltd, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aadcv 9495 L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 2(32)

failed to appreciate that the explanation 3(b) to section 2(22)(e) is an independent provision and the provisions of section 2(32) do not match ‘mutatis mutandis’ apply to the present case. (iv) Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 4. Ground No.3 ... order and hence the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act are not attracted in view of specific explanation in section 2(32) of the Act as to when a shareholder of a company is said to be having substantial interest in the company. In the case