“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

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)

Hazaribagh Ranchi Expressway Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT- Cir-14(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3788/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Bhupal RapelliFor Respondent: Shri Savya Sachi Kumar

Section 12Section 250Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(li)

nature of a "license" or "business' or 'commercial right' be regarded as an "intangible asset in terms of the provision of Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The Appellant prays that they had constructed the road and have the right to earn revenue ... form of annuity from the use of such "intangible asset" being a 'license' or 'business' or 'commercial right' as contemplated in section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. The Appellant prays that the depreciation on the road amounting to Rs. 254,27,71,440/- may bel granted u/s 32, treating

Hazaribagh Ranchi Expressway Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Cir-14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment years

ITA 3787/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Bhupal RapelliFor Respondent: Shri Savya Sachi Kumar

Section 12Section 250Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(li)

nature of a "license" or "business' or ‘commercial right' be regarded as an "intangible asset in terms of the provision of Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The Appellant prays that they had constructed the road and have the right to earn revenue ... form of annuity from the use of such “intangible asset" being a '‘license' or ‘'business' or ‘commercial right' as contemplated in section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. The Appellant prays that the depreciation on the road amounting to Rs. 254,27,71,440/- may bel granted u/s 32, treating

ACIT., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad vs. Synergies Castings Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed in its favour

ITA 641/HYD/2024[2021]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Sept 2024

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: : Shri Srikanth Reddy Y, DR

Section 143(1)(a)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(va)

against the cost of moulds as the Appellant inadvertently claimed the deduction of Rs.2,21,53,320/-as per the provisions of section 32(1)(ii)(12). Thus the same was added to the depreciation and thereby the deprecation was wrongly shown in the ROI amounting to Rs.16,32 ... alloy wheels during the year under review. While claiming the same, the Appellant inadvertently claimed the deduction as per the provisions of section 32(1)(ii)(12). Thus the same was added to the depreciation and thereby the deprecation was wrongly shown in the ROI amounting to Rs.16,32

DCIT, C-1, Kolkata vs. Naba Dignata Water Management Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the Revenus is hereby dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is not press in view of our findings on forgoing

ITA 887/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: proceeding for disallowances the AO has conducted necessary examination and ground work, which are evident from the recordings of note-sheet.

Section 147Section 250Section 32(1)(ii)

partly by the assessee completely ignoring the fact that it was merely a provision which is not allowable as per provision of section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate ... under section 147 of the Act be quashed as null and void and bad in law. 2) CO No. 2-Depreciation claim under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Respondent prays that depreciation under

Nahar Poly Films Limited, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 458/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 458/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Nahar Poly Films Limited, Vs. The Dcit, बनाम 375, Industrial Area-A, Circle-1, Ludhiana 141003 Aayakar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaacn5708K अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Navdeep Sharma, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 29.05.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2024 आदेश/Order Per Dr. Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

For Appellant: Sh. Navdeep Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 14Section 14A

days and accordingly additional depreciation for the said preceding year was restricted to 50% of the normal additional depreciation as per provision of section 32(1)(ii). The balance 50% of the additional depreciation which was short allowed because of restriction in the said year has been claimed during

Genpact Services Llc, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-1(3)(1) Int. Taxation, Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1834/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumara.Yr. : 2018-19 M/S Genpact Services Llc Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Plot No. 22A & B, Sector-18, Income Tax, Udyog Vihar, Circle – Int. Tax 1(3)(1), Gurgaon, New Delhi Haryana-122002 (Pan: Aaccg3353P) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv. & Ms. ReemaFor Respondent: Shri Zafrul Haque Tanweer, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(10)Section 144C(13)

income of the Appellant and a corresponding depreciation claim of 25% i.e., Rs. 5,54,00,069 was allowed to the Appellant under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid assessment order passed for AY 2010-11, the Appellant preferred an appeal before

Vijaywada Gudugolanu Road Project Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-26(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 1839/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 32(1)(ii)

Appellant's claim for Depreciation of Rs. 976,14,23,859/- on Intangible Assets by way of "Rights to collect Toll" under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case ... fall in any of the categories of "intangible assets" as defined under the Act, so as to be eligible for Depreciation thereon under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. c) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance

Impresario Entertainment & Hospitality Pvt Ltd, Mumbai, India vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax PCIT, Mumbai-5, Ayakar Bhavan Mumbai

ITA 1926/MUM/2024[AY 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Hakani, A/RFor Respondent: Ms. Madhu Malati Ghosh, CIT, D/R

Section 143(3)Section 263

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण न्यायपीठ, मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON

ITO, Cw-1(1), Chennai vs. Inspirisys Solutions Ltd, Kilpauk

The appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 9/CHNY/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.9,10 & 11/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-2016) & C.O.Nos.5, 6 &7/Chny/2023 (In Ita Nos.9,10 & 11/Chny/2022) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Inspirisys Solutions Limited, Corporate Ward 1(1) First Floor, New Door Nos. 57,59,63 & 64, Chennai 600 034. Dowlath Towers, Taylors Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010. [Pan: Aaaca 5622M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent/ Cross Objector) Department By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit. Shri. Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl. Cit Assessee By : Shri. N.V. Balaji, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri. N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT

Section 14ASection 253

transfer of IPRs and towards non compete fee have not been segregated or distinctly mentioned. In order to qualify for a depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, it would first be relevant to refer to the said provision, which reads as under: "32 Depreciation: (1) in respect ... Bombay Stock Exchange enables it to trade on the floor, is a business or commercial right in the nature of a licence under Section 32 (1)(ii) of the Act. 24. The Department on the other hand, pointed out that membership is a personal privilege and that

ITO, Cw-1(1), Chennai vs. Inspirisys Solutions Ltd, Chennai

The appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 11/CHNY/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri. N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT

Section 14ASection 253

ITO, Cw-1(1), Chennai vs. Inspirisys Solutions Limited, Chennai

The appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 10/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri. N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT

Section 14ASection 253

Ram Ratan Jangir, Amer vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -7(2), Jaipur

In the result ground no. 1 raised by the

ITA 550/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Anoop Bhatiya, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

purposes of the business or profession." Thus the aforesaid section 38(2) under which disallowance can be made refers to deduction available section 32(1) (ii) only for making the proportionate disallowance. Now section 32(1)(ii) is quoted below : " 32 (1) ( ii) In respect of depreciation of – (ii) know ... abundantly clear that the proportionate disallowance of depreciation for partial use of assets can be made only u/s 38(2) read with section 32(1)(ii). In other words, disallowance of 17 Ram Ratan Jangir vs. ITO depreciation can be made only in respect of intangible assets, whereas building, plant

M/S. Sjs Enterprises Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 973/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri. Rony Anthony, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 37Section 37(1)

above the Learned Assessing Officer ("Ld. AO") ought to have appreciated that non-compete fee is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Each of the above ground of appeal is independent and without prejudice to the other grounds of appeal preferred

DCIT Corporate Circle 1 (2), Chennai vs. M/S Consolidated Construction Consortium Ltd, Chennai

In the result, aforesaid grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2799/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2799/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 V. The Dcit, M/S. Consolidated Corporate Circle-1(2), Construction Chennai. Consortium Ltd., No.3, Ii Link Street, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. [Pan: Aaacc 4214 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A. Sasikumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate

Section 10Section 37(1)Section 40A(2)(b)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

Buccs Ltd. and Nbc and Jv, Buldhana vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 67/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalkFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Singhai

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 32(1)(ii)

construction of infrastructural facilities like roads/highways on Build-Operate- Transfer (BOT) basis with right to collect toll is entitled for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act or the same can be amortized by treating it as an allowable business expenditure under the relevant provisions

DCIT CC 4.4 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Indagro Foods Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, ground no.1 of the appeal raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 489/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Dcit, Cc-4.4 Vs. Indagro Foods Pvt. Ltd. 1918, Air India Building Allana House, Colaba Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400001 Maharashtra – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaci6584Q Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: H.M. BhattFor Respondent: Apurva Shah

Section 10Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 32Section 32(1)(ii)

P a g e | 1 DCIT, CC-4.4 Vs. Indagro Foods Pvt. Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C

Kurukshetra Expressway Pvt Ltd, Rewari vs. DCIT Circle, Rewari

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 9544/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarasstt. Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anu Krishna Aggarwal

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

project. Learned CIT(A) and Learned AO erred in not allowing the claim of depreciation is not in tandem with section 32(1)(ii) and the reliance on circular no. 9/2014 is wrongly placed. 12. Learned representative for appellant/assessee submitted that the "Right to collect toll" is a business/commercial right ... terms of section 32(1)(ii) and depreciation @25% is allowable on the same. The appellant entered into a Concession Agreement ('the Agreement') with NHAI on 13.07.2010 for development, operation, management, and maintenance of the Rohtak Bawal section of NH-71 [including 4-laning the highway) on Design, Build, Finance

Joint Commissioner of Income -Tax, Special Range - 6, Bangalore vs. M/S. Samsung R & D Institute India-Bangalore Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

ITA 978/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 32Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Special Range-6, Bangalore vs. M/S. Samsung R & D Institute India-Bangalore Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

ITA 958/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 32Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT

M/S Samsung R & D Institute India Bangalore Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 484/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmedappeal No. Appellant Respondent Assessment Year

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 32Section 40

ITA/IT(TP)A Nos. 1008, 1092, 1166, 484, 958, 1045, 1046 & 978/Bang/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH