← 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)

M/S. Samsung R & D Institute India Bangalore Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income- Tax, Circle - 6(1)(1), 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 1166/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2024AY 2013-14

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. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(1), 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 1092/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2024AY 2012-13

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 1046/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2024AY 2013-14

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

ITA 1045/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2024AY 2012-13

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

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

Vodafone India Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2834/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2024AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri P.J. PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri T. Sankar
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 234DSection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "I" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

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

ITA 884/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2024AY 2011-12
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 234DSection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "I" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

DCIT 8(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Vodafone Idea Limited (Earlier Known As Vodafone India Limited Which Now Stands Merged With Idea Cellular Limited (Icl) and Consequently Known As Vodafone Idea Limited), Mumbai

ITA 1919/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2024AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri P.J. PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri T. Sankar
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 234DSection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "I" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Primetals Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2017-18

ITA 372/KOL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 May 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 371 & 372/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Primetals Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata 5Th Floor, Tower-C Vs Dlf, It Park-I 08 Majore Arterial Road New Town Kolkata - 700156 [Pan : Aaecv9657M] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajoy Vora, Sr. Advocate & Pooja Saraf, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Orders Framed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C & 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 1(1), Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Ao”) Even Dt. 29/04/2022, Passed In Pursuance Of The Directions Of The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel -2, New Delhi, Dt. 18/02/2022 For Assessment Year 2017-18 & Dt. 04/03/2022 For Assessment Year 2018-19, Passed U/S 144C(5) Of The Act. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18:- “Ground 1:

For Appellant: Shri Ajoy Vora, Sr. Advocate and Pooja Saraf, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 156Section 32(1)Section 92C

consideration paid and consideration allocated towards net asset was given the label of goodwill. The ld. AO further observed that 6th proviso to section 32(1)(ii) of the Act is applicable and that the assessee, being amalgamated company/ successor, cannot claim or be allowed to claim depreciation on assets ... allowable can only be claimed by both the entities for the year in which such merger/amalgamation takes place. So, the 6th proviso to Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act only refers to the depreciation claimed on the assets existing prior to such merger/amalgamation. However, in the instant case during

Primetals Technologies India Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2017-18

ITA 371/KOL/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 May 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 371 & 372/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Primetals Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata 5Th Floor, Tower-C Vs Dlf, It Park-I 08 Majore Arterial Road New Town Kolkata - 700156 [Pan : Aaecv9657M] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajoy Vora, Sr. Advocate & Pooja Saraf, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Orders Framed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C & 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 1(1), Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Ao”) Even Dt. 29/04/2022, Passed In Pursuance Of The Directions Of The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel -2, New Delhi, Dt. 18/02/2022 For Assessment Year 2017-18 & Dt. 04/03/2022 For Assessment Year 2018-19, Passed U/S 144C(5) Of The Act. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18:- “Ground 1:

For Appellant: Shri Ajoy Vora, Sr. Advocate and Pooja Saraf, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 156Section 32(1)Section 92C

consideration paid and consideration allocated towards net asset was given the label of goodwill. The ld. AO further observed that 6th proviso to section 32(1)(ii) of the Act is applicable and that the assessee, being amalgamated company/ successor, cannot claim or be allowed to claim depreciation on assets ... allowable can only be claimed by both the entities for the year in which such merger/amalgamation takes place. So, the 6th proviso to Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act only refers to the depreciation claimed on the assets existing prior to such merger/amalgamation. However, in the instant case during

Gati Kintetsu Express Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income, Cirlce 14(1)(2)Tax, Mumbai

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

ITA 2833/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Mr. Madhur Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 250

similar in nature and hence other business or commercial rights of similar in nature and hence eligible for depreciation as per provision of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. for depreciation as per provision of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. for depreciation as per provision of section ... Assessing Officer has further relied o The learned Assessing Officer has further relied on fifth proviso ( n fifth proviso ( now sixth proviso) to section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, which is reproduced for now sixth proviso) to section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, which is reproduced

Gati Kintetsu Express Private Limited, Maharashtra and Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai, Maharashtra and Mumbai

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

ITA 2832/MUM/2023[ASS YEAR 2016 - 2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Mr. Madhur Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 250

similar in nature and hence other business or commercial rights of similar in nature and hence eligible for depreciation as per provision of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. for depreciation as per provision of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. for depreciation as per provision of section ... Assessing Officer has further relied o The learned Assessing Officer has further relied on fifth proviso ( n fifth proviso ( now sixth proviso) to section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, which is reproduced for now sixth proviso) to section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, which is reproduced

Gati Kintetsu Express Private Limited, Maharashtra and Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai, Maharashtra and Mumbai

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

ITA 2831/MUM/2023[ASS YEAR 2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Mr. Madhur Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 250

similar in nature and hence other business or commercial rights of similar in nature and hence eligible for depreciation as per provision of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. for depreciation as per provision of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. for depreciation as per provision of section ... Assessing Officer has further relied o The learned Assessing Officer has further relied on fifth proviso ( n fifth proviso ( now sixth proviso) to section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, which is reproduced for now sixth proviso) to section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, which is reproduced

Gati Kintetsu Express Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

ITA 2830/MUM/2023[ASST YEAR 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Mr. Madhur Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 250

similar in nature and hence other business or commercial rights of similar in nature and hence eligible for depreciation as per provision of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. for depreciation as per provision of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. for depreciation as per provision of section ... Assessing Officer has further relied o The learned Assessing Officer has further relied on fifth proviso ( n fifth proviso ( now sixth proviso) to section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, which is reproduced for now sixth proviso) to section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, which is reproduced

Gati Kintetsu Express Pvt. Ltd, Maharashtra and Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai, Maharashtra and Mumbai

ITA 2829/MUM/2023[ASS YEAR 2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Mr. Madhur Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 250

intangible assets or in other business or commercial rights of similar in nature and hence eligible for depreciation as per provision of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. But in the instant case issue is that no intangible assets in the nature of goodwill could be said ... amalgamation and not in respect of slump sale. 5.23 The learned Assessing Officer has further relied on fifth proviso ( now sixth proviso) to section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, which is reproduced for ready reference: "Provided also that the aggregate deduction, in respect of depreciation of buildings, machinery, plant

DCIT, Circle- 20(2), New Delhi vs. Quippo Energy (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4120/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.4120/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 बनाम Dcit, Quippo Energy (P) Ltd., D-2, 5Th Floor, Southern Park, Circle 20(2), Vs. New Delhi. Saket Place, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaacq1675Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 79

I.T.A.No.4120/Del/2017 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Diadora Shoes Pvt Ltd, Calicut vs. ACIT Circle 2(1), Calicut

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 92/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Anil Kumar Dugar, Jm

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 250Section 32(1)(iia)

actual cost of such machinery or plant shall be allowed as deduction under clause (ii) : Provided that…. A third proviso was inserted to section 32(1)(ii) by Finance Act, 2015, w.e.f. 01.04.2016, reading as under: Provided also that where an asset referred to in clause (iia) or the first

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1833/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Genpact Services Llc, Vs. Acit, Plot No. 22A & B, Circle-1(3)(1), Sector-18, Udyog Vihar, International Taxation, Gurgaon, Haryana New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccg3353P

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 92C

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

Diadora Shoes Pvt Ltd, Calicut vs. ACIT Circle 2(1), Calicut

In the result, the assessee’sappeal is allowed

ITA 213/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasdiadora Shoes Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Cit, Circle - 2 Vkc Tower, Kolathra P.O Calicut 673001 Vs. Calicut 673655 [Pan:Aabcd9692D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Venugopal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

sole issue arising in the instant appeal is if the amendment by way of insertion of the third proviso to section 32(1)(ii) by Finance Act, 2015, w.e.f. 01.04.2016, is retrospective in nature? While the assessee before us relies on the decisions in the following cases, the Revenue relies ... actual cost of such machinery or plant shall be allowed as deduction under clause (ii) : Provided that…. A third proviso was inserted to section 32(1)(ii) by Finance Act, 2015, w.e.f. 01.04.2016, reading as under: Provided also that where an asset referred to in clause (iia) or the first

M/S.Cochin Shipyard Ltd, Kochi vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 654/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Mar 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dascochin Shipyard Ltd. Dy. Cit, Corporate Circle 1(1) Administrative Building C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road Shipyard Premises Kochi 682018 Vs. Perumanoor P.O. Kochi 682015 [Pan:Aaacc6905B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Radhesh L. Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32(1)(iia)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Shri Manomohan Das, Judicial

Lupin Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT, Circle-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 77/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri PranayFor Respondent: Ms. Manju Thakur, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

Limited deduction claimed through a letter during assessment proceedings towards additional depreciation on assets put to use for less than 180 days under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and deduction towards leave encashment. The AO also made an addition under section 40(a)(v) of the Act towards ... accounting principles. The question is whether such kinds of goodwill would fall under the category of business or commercial rights as mentioned in section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, which was interpreted by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smiffs Securities Ltd (supra). Hence it is imperative