← All Phrases

“Section 32(1)(ii)”

Section References (mined)Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)412 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 32(1)(ii) is CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd. (348 ITR 302), cited in 540 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 32(1)(ii)

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.

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.

Munjal Sales Corporation v. CIT
298 ITR 298 · 2008 · Supreme Court
191
citing judgments

The Supreme Court approves the mixed fund theory, holding that no interest disallowance is warranted under section 36(1)(iii) if investments or advances are made from the assessee's own non-interest bearing funds, even when mixed funds are available. This presumption applies when non-interest bearing funds are sufficient to meet the investments.

Techno Shares and Stocks Ltd. v. CIT
327 ITR 323 · 2010 · Supreme Court
130
citing judgments

Membership rights and business contracts, as 'business or commercial rights of similar nature' to a license or franchise, qualify as intangible assets eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act.

Income Tax-III, Pune v. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona
89 Taxmann.com 127 · 2018 · Supreme Court
130
citing judgments

The claim of depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act for assets used by charitable trusts is permissible, affirming the Bombay High Court's view that such a claim does not amount to a 'double benefit'.

CIT v. Associated Cement Companies Ltd.
172 ITR 257 · 1988 · Supreme Court
126
citing judgments

An expenditure is classified as either capital or revenue; the 'enduring benefit' test is a key criterion for this distinction, and income tax law does not generally recognize deferred revenue expenditure unless specifically provided.

CIT v. Karnataka Power Corporation
247 ITR 268 · 2001 · Supreme Court
124
citing judgments

Income earned during the project construction stage, which has a direct nexus or is inextricably linked to the project's setting up, constitutes a capital receipt not liable to tax and reduces the project cost.

Areva T&D India Ltd. v. DCIT
345 ITR 421 · 2012 · High Court
97
citing judgments

Business contracts and commercial rights of similar nature qualify as intangible assets under Section 32(1)(ii) and are eligible for depreciation. The decision also affirms that goodwill is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation.

Judgments citing Section 32(1)(ii)

DCIT, Chennai vs. Ab Mauri India Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly-allowed

ITA 3318/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3318/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-2014) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. A B Mauri India Private Ltd, Income Tax, Plot No.218 & 219 Bommasandra Corporate Circle 1(1) Jigani Link Road, Rajapura Hobli, Chennai 600 034. Jigani, Anekal Taluk. Bengaluru 560 105. [Pan:Aaeca 9923H ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. Kavitha, Irs, Addl. Cit. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri S P Chidambaram, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25 .11.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Ms. Kavitha, IRS, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri S P Chidambaram, Advocate
Section 129Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

total income of the assessee company. 2.1 The assessee also claimed depreciation @25% for the Non-Compete fee. As per the assessee Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act demonstrates ‘’other commercial rights of similar natures’’ includes Non-Compete Fee. However, the ld. Assessing Officer denied the same ... right is an intangible asset in the nature of 'any other commercial rights of similar nature' qualifying for claim of depreciation as per Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. It is further contended that the depreciation on non- compete fee having been held to be allowable in the initial

Dow Chemical International Private Limited, Thane vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - 14(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 3772/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. AR /
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32

allowed under the Act is governed by the provisions of the Act. By referring to the provisions of the sixth proviso to section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, the AO held that the assessee is not eligible for depreciation on goodwill. Further, by referring to the provisions of Explanation ... upon amalgamation. Therefore, depreciation of Rs.16,80,16,789 @25% on goodwill value of Rs.67,52,67,147 claimed by the assessee under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act was disallowed by the AO. 8. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the ground raised by the assessee

Dow Chemicals International Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Ta-14(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1200/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. AR /
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32

allowed under the Act is governed by the provisions of the Act. By referring to the provisions of the sixth proviso to section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, the AO held that the assessee is not eligible for depreciation on goodwill. Further, by referring to the provisions of Explanation ... upon amalgamation. Therefore, depreciation of Rs.16,80,16,789 @25% on goodwill value of Rs.67,52,67,147 claimed by the assessee under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act was disallowed by the AO. 8. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the ground raised by the assessee

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax CC-5(2), Mumbai vs. Jet Privilege Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals for AY 2015-16 to 2018-19 & 2021-22 of the assessee, revenue, and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2325/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 32(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No.1953/Mum/2023

Jet Privilege Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax CC-5(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals for AY 2015-16 to 2018-19 & 2021-22 of the assessee, revenue, and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2287/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 32(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No.1953/Mum/2023

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax CC-5(2), Mumbai vs. Jet Privilege Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals for AY 2015-16 to 2018-19 & 2021-22 of the assessee, revenue, and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2163/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 32(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No.1953/Mum/2023

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax CC-5(2), Mumbai vs. Jet Privilege Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals for AY 2015-16 to 2018-19 & 2021-22 of the assessee, revenue, and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2162/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 32(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No.1953/Mum/2023

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax CC-5(2), Mumbai vs. Jet Privilege Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals for AY 2015-16 to 2018-19 & 2021-22 of the assessee, revenue, and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2161/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 32(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No.1953/Mum/2023

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax CC-5(2), Mumbai vs. Jet Privilege Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals for AY 2015-16 to 2018-19 & 2021-22 of the assessee, revenue, and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2160/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 32(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No.1953/Mum/2023

Jet Privilege Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5(2) (Ershtwhile Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax-10(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals for AY 2015-16 to 2018-19 & 2021-22 of the assessee, revenue, and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1956/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 32(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No.1953/Mum/2023

Jet Privilege Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5(2) (Ershtwhile Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax-10(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals for AY 2015-16 to 2018-19 & 2021-22 of the assessee, revenue, and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1955/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 32(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No.1953/Mum/2023

Jet Privilege Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5(2) (Ershtwhile Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax-10(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals for AY 2015-16 to 2018-19 & 2021-22 of the assessee, revenue, and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1954/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 32(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No.1953/Mum/2023

Jet Privilege Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5(2) (Ershtwhile Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax-10(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals for AY 2015-16 to 2018-19 & 2021-22 of the assessee, revenue, and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1953/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 32(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No.1953/Mum/2023

Venkatesh Naik Mohandas & Sons, Calicut vs. The ACIT, Kozhikkode

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 561/COCH/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhvenkatesh Naik Mohandas & Sons Acit, Circle 1(1) & Tps 10/993, Sri Venkatesh Palayalam Aayakar Bhavan Road, Palayam Vs. Mananchira Calicut 673001 Kozhikode 673001 [Pan: Aabfv9069R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Balram R. Rao, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 250Section 32(1)(ii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member and Shri Amarjit Singh

Vodafone India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(3)(2), Mumbai

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6671/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Date
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 32(1)Section 35ASection 40

specific provision, i.e. section 35ABB would apply and not the general provision of the commercial rights in the nature of license covered under section 32(1)(ii). 6.2. In the objections filed by the Appellant against the Draft Assessment Order on the above issue, the DRP declined to grant ... Tribunal in identical fact pattern for the same assessment year has not only upheld claim of depreciation on the 3G spectrum fees under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act treating the right to use 3G spectrum as an intangible asset, but has also quashed the revisionary proceedings initiated

ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur vs. Aia Engineering Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 532/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 397/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 बनाम Aia Engineering Limited, Dcit Vs. 115, Gvmm Estate, Odhav Road, Circle-1(1)(1), Odhav, Ahmedabad-382415 Ahmedabad Pan : Aabca 2777 J आयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 532/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 बनाम Aia Engineering Limited, Acit, Vs. 115, Gvmm Estate, Odhav Road, Circle-1(1)(1), Odhav, Ahmedabad-382415 Ahmedabad Pan : Aabca 2777 J अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Pratik Sharma, Sr Dr & Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2024 सुनवाई क" क" तारीख सुनवाई सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21.10.2024 घोषणा घोषणा घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Pratik Sharma, Sr DR &
Section 154Section 250Section 32

High Court of Gujarat. That the provisions of law referred to by the Revenue Authorities, i.e. (i) 6th proviso to Section 32(1), (ii) Explanation 7 to Section 43(1), (iii) Explanation 2(b) to Section 43(6)(c), (iv) Section 55(2)(a)(ii) and (v) Section 49(1 ... Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Zydus Wellness (2017) 87 Taxmann.com 82 (Guj). 3.1.9 The Assessee Company claimed depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) on this amount at 25 percent p.a. in its return of income for AY 2014-15 and all subsequent years by treating

M/S. Shristi Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1256/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Sept 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm M/S Shristi Infrastructure Dcit, Development Corporation Circle 11(1) Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, Plot No.X-12 & 3, Block P-7, Chowringhee Vs. Ep, Sector V Salt Lake City, Square, Kolkata700069 Kolkata-700 091 West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp5074F Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surna, Ar Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2024

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surna, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, AM AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM M/s

Tag Chemicals (India) Private Ltd, Ernakulam vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), Trivandrum

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 678/COCH/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Tag Chemicals (India) Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle - 1(1) Kinfra Bio-Technology & Trivandrum Industrial Zone Vs. Thrikkakara North Part Hmt Colony, Ernakulam 683503 [Pan: Aacct8064G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.V. Hariharan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Girly Albert, Sr. D.R
Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 37

period of 30 years and as such it is an "intangible assets". Thus, the assessee is entitled for depreciation as per section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. We observe that the said amount of Rs.150 crores paid by assessee is non-refundable. The assessee has got the privilege under ... business at the premises of the Stock- Exchange is a business or commercial right which is akin to license in terms of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, therefore, eligible for depreciation. Their Lordships have held that right to participate in the market is an economic and money value

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax 8(2)(1), Mumbai, Ayakar Bhavan vs. Piramal Glass Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1232/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2021-22 Asst. Cit-8(2)(1), Piramal Glass Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 481, Aayakar Bhavan, 6Th Floor, Piramal Tower Annexe Maharishi Karve Road, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Mumbai-400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aabcg 0093 R Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Ronak Doshi &
Section 36(1)(ii)

however, of the opinion that to claim depreciation, the assessee must on that to claim depreciation, the assessee must satisfy the requirement of Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, in which satisfy the requirement of Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, in which satisfy the requirement of Section ... depreciation in section agreement, the same would never qualify for depreciation in section agreement, the same would never qualify for depreciation in section 32(1)(ii) of the Act as being depreciable intangible asset. This view 32(1)(ii) of the Act as being depreciable intangible asset. This view 32

DCIT-14(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Mahanagar Gas Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 586/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 250Section 32(1)(ii)Section 32A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, AM ITA