← All Phrases

“Section 145(32)”

Section References (mined)Section 145Section 145(32)2 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 145(32) is CIT v. N.C. Budharaja & Co. (204 ITR 412), cited in 164 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 145(32)

CIT v. N.C. Budharaja & Co.
204 ITR 412 · 1993 · Supreme Court
164
citing judgments

The word 'production' has a wider connotation than 'manufacture'; every manufacture is production, but not every production amounts to manufacture. 'Production' includes bringing into existence new goods, by-products, or inter-products through a process, which may or may not be manufacture.

CIT v. A. Gajapathy Naidu
53 ITR 114 · 1964 · Supreme Court
73
citing judgments

An Income Tax Officer assessing income must determine the assessee's system of accountancy and, for the mercantile system, ascertain when the right to receive the income legally accrued.

CIT v. Hi Tech Arai Ltd.
321 ITR 477 · 2010 · High Court
62
citing judgments

The court may allow additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) for new machinery if it is used in the business of any article or thing, even if not directly linked to increasing production capacity.

Dhoomketu Builders & Development (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT
368 ITR 680 · 2014 · High Court
41
citing judgments

A real estate development business is considered 'set up' when the assessee is in a position to undertake activities for the acquisition, development, and exploitation of real estate. Expenses incurred between the setting up and commencement of such a business are allowable, even if no revenue is generated or land is classified as a non-current investment.

CIT v. Dilip Singh Sardarsingh Bagga
201 ITR 995 · 1993 · High Court
40
citing judgments

Registration of a motor vehicle under the Motor Vehicles Act is not a prerequisite for claiming depreciation under the Income Tax Act. Beneficial ownership and actual use for business purposes are sufficient.

CIT v. Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd.
257 ITR 88 · 2002 · High Court
34
citing judgments

Depreciation on a vehicle cannot be denied solely because the transfer was not recorded under the Motor Vehicles Act or the vehicle stood in the vendor's name in official records, if the assessee can establish ownership.

North Karnataka Expressway Ltd. v. CIT
372 ITR 145 · 2015 · High Court
32
citing judgments

Depreciation is not allowable on toll roads constructed under Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) arrangements as the assessee does not acquire ownership of the road and the right to collect toll is merely a contractual right, not an intangible asset under section 32(1)(ii).

CIT v. Biocon Ltd.
40 ITR 151 · 1983 · Reported
27
citing judgments

The discount on the issue of Employees Stock Options (ESOPs) is an ascertained liability, not a contingent one, and is an expenditure deductible under Section 37(1) for the purpose of earning profits through employee services.

Judgments citing Section 145(32)

Kshetrapal Gold Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 105/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kshetrapal Gold Private Limited, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sf-1, Kush Avenue, Mandvi Ni Ward 2(1)(2), Pole, Manek Chowk, Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad Gujarat-380001 Pan : Aafck 6724 M अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" "" यथ" "" यथ"/ (Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" यथ" Assessee By : Shri Mahesh Chhajed, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22.10.2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 20.11.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit (A) Is Against Law, Equity & Justice. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Upholding Rejection Of Books Of Accounts In Contravention To The Provisions Of Act. 3. The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Upholding Addition Made By The Ld. A.O. U/S 68 Of The Act Even After Rejection Books Of Accounts.

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Chhajed, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr DR
Section 115BSection 145Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "ायपीठ ‘B’ अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE MRS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA