← 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)

Asstt. CIT -Circle-3(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Lupin Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 1241/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

Pnk Space Development Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 13(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3286/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Pnk Space Development Private Income Tax Officer, Ward 13(1)(4) Limited Mumbai 601, Purva Plaza, Shimpoli Road, Vs. Borivali West, Mumbai-400 092

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Kakoli Ghosh
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 245D(4)Section 250Section 32(1)(ii)Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM

Shree Cement Limited, Beawar vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 500/JPR/2023[215-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

For Appellant: Sh. Dilip B Desai(C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H) &
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144B(1)(xvi)Section 80Section 80I

Hence, AO is directed to grant depreciation @25% on such leasehold rights acquired of Rs. 14,93,25,916/- in accordance with section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. The additional ground no. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed.” 61. On being consistent to the findings so recorded ... 1)(ii) of the Act. Hence, AO is directed to grant depreciation @25% on such leasehold rights in accordance with the provision of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Ergo we decide accordingly, and the additional ground no. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed. 62. Ground

Shree Cement Limited, Beawar vs. National Faceless Assessment Assessment Centre, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Ajmer

ITA 497/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024AY 2017-18
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144B(1)(xvi)Section 80Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM

Shree Cement Limited, Beawar vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Deputy Commissionerof Income Tax, Circle -2, Ajmer

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

ITA 496/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

For Appellant: Sh. Dilip B Desai(C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H) &
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144B(1)(xvi)Section 80Section 80I

Hence, AO is directed to grant depreciation @25% on such leasehold rights acquired of Rs. 14,93,25,916/- in accordance with section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. The additional ground no. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed.” 61. On being consistent to the findings so recorded ... 1)(ii) of the Act. Hence, AO is directed to grant depreciation @25% on such leasehold rights in accordance with the provision of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Ergo we decide accordingly, and the additional ground no. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed. 62. Ground

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ajmer vs. Shree Cement Ltd, Beawar

ITA 490/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024AY 2016-17
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144B(1)(xvi)Section 80Section 80I

ITA Nos. 489 to 492/JP/2023 ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. 2 These are eight cross appeals filed by the revenue

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ajmer vs. Shree Cement Ltd, Beawar

ITA 489/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Sh. Dilip B Desai(C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H) &
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144B(1)(xvi)Section 80Section 80I

ITA Nos. 489 to 492/JP/2023 ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. 1 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME

ACIT, Cirlce- 11(1), New Delhi vs. Henkel Anand India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the cross

ITA 3327/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 37(1)Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH

DCIT, Cirlce- 11(1), New Delhi vs. Henkel Anand India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the cross

ITA 1025/DEL/2018[23013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2024

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 37(1)Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH

Kifs International LLP, Ahmedabad vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi Presently With ACIT, Central Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 684/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 682, 683 & 684/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 To 2018-19) Kifs International Llp Acit बनाम/ B-81, Pariseema Complex, Circle-5(2)(1), Vs. C. G. Road, Ellisbridge, Narayan Chambers Ahmedabad 380006 Building, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad [Presently With Acit, Central Circle 1(4), 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Ashrma Road, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaqfk2892L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Assessee By : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.Rs. Revenue By : Shri Ritesh Parmar, Cit. Dr & Shri Rajdeep Singh, Sr.Dr (On 08.11.2023) & Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Cit.Dr (On 30.01.2024) सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 08/11/2023 & 30.01.2024 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 08/02/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Bunch Of Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Dated 14.08.2023 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad (In Short ‘Cit(A)’) Arising Out Of The Orders Dated

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Parmar, CIT. DR & Shri
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 32Section 32(1)Section 43(6)

However, considering that KIPL was in existence only till 14 March 2016, on the basis of the provisions of sixth proviso to section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, KIPL claimed depreciation on goodwill amounting to Rs.73,84,36,872/- and the appellant claimed balance depreciation of Rs.337

Kifs International LLP, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-5(2)(1) Presently With ACIT, Central Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 683/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 682, 683 & 684/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 To 2018-19) Kifs International Llp Acit बनाम/ B-81, Pariseema Complex, Circle-5(2)(1), Vs. C. G. Road, Ellisbridge, Narayan Chambers Ahmedabad 380006 Building, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad [Presently With Acit, Central Circle 1(4), 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Ashrma Road, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaqfk2892L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Assessee By : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.Rs. Revenue By : Shri Ritesh Parmar, Cit. Dr & Shri Rajdeep Singh, Sr.Dr (On 08.11.2023) & Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Cit.Dr (On 30.01.2024) सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 08/11/2023 & 30.01.2024 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 08/02/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Bunch Of Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Dated 14.08.2023 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad (In Short ‘Cit(A)’) Arising Out Of The Orders Dated

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Parmar, CIT. DR & Shri
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 32Section 32(1)Section 43(6)

However, considering that KIPL was in existence only till 14 March 2016, on the basis of the provisions of sixth proviso to section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, KIPL claimed depreciation on goodwill amounting to Rs.73,84,36,872/- and the appellant claimed balance depreciation of Rs.337

Kifs International LLP, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-5(2)(1) Presently With ACIT, Central Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 682/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 682, 683 & 684/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 To 2018-19) Kifs International Llp Acit बनाम/ B-81, Pariseema Complex, Circle-5(2)(1), Vs. C. G. Road, Ellisbridge, Narayan Chambers Ahmedabad 380006 Building, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad [Presently With Acit, Central Circle 1(4), 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Ashrma Road, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaqfk2892L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Assessee By : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.Rs. Revenue By : Shri Ritesh Parmar, Cit. Dr & Shri Rajdeep Singh, Sr.Dr (On 08.11.2023) & Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Cit.Dr (On 30.01.2024) सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 08/11/2023 & 30.01.2024 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 08/02/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Bunch Of Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Dated 14.08.2023 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad (In Short ‘Cit(A)’) Arising Out Of The Orders Dated

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Parmar, CIT. DR & Shri
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 32Section 32(1)Section 43(6)

However, considering that KIPL was in existence only till 14 March 2016, on the basis of the provisions of sixth proviso to section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, KIPL claimed depreciation on goodwill amounting to Rs.73,84,36,872/- and the appellant claimed balance depreciation of Rs.337

DCIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Water Health Inida P.Ltd, Andhra Pradesh

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4912/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Aby T. Varkey (Jm)

Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35D

correct in holding that “Right to operate community water system” is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. We noticed from the record that the registry has sent several notices to the assessee, but most ... right to operate the community water system is an intangible asset of the appellant and the same comes within the purview of section 32(1)(ii) as these rights are business or commercial rights granted to the appellant as per agreement with the Village Panchayat to operate and collect user

M/S Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu)-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 575/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm)

Section 144ASection 32ASection 35Section 37(1)Section 80I

further sum equal to twenty percent of the actual cost of such machinery or plant shall be allowed as deduction. Provisions of Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act are a piece of beneficial legislation being incentive provision is a piece of beneficial legislation is to be liberally construed

Roadstar Investment Mangers Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 14 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground No.1 of the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3311/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Roadstar Investment The Assistant Managers Ltd. Commissioner Of Income Plot No.C-22, G Block, Tax, Circle 14(1)(1) Vs. Bkc, Bandra (East), Room No.432, Mumbai – 400 051 Aaykar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Bhupal Rapelli &For Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 80I

depreciation at the rate of 25% treating to right to collect the toll on the road under the category as intangible asset under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Vide Para No.5.3, the Ld. CIT (A) did not admit the same holding that this was not raised ... business' or 'commercial right' be regarded as an "intangible asset" in terms of the Roadstar Investment Managers Ltd.; A.Y. 2014-15 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

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 1921/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

similar nature’ as given in the Explanation to section 32(1) of the Act and therefore it is eligible for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. He also placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smifs Securities ... 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

M/S. Deepak Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 6(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 467/KOL/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234CSection 36(1)(va)Section 43(1)Section 43A

assessment year because of the reason that the asset was put to use for less than 180 days in terms of provision of Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. The operative part of the case M/s Birla corporation Ltd. vs. DCIT is extracted below: “We have heard rival submissions ... next assessment year for remaining unutilized additional depreciation. We have gone through the relevant provisions of second proviso to section 32(1)(ii) and 32(1)(iia) of the Act. In the present case before us, the assessee has purchased and installed new plant and machinery for its manufacturing unit

M/S. Deepak Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-6(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 466/KOL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Jan 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234CSection 36(1)(va)Section 43(1)Section 43A

assessment year because of the reason that the asset was put to use for less than 180 days in terms of provision of Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. The operative part of the case M/s Birla corporation Ltd. vs. DCIT is extracted below: “We have heard rival submissions ... next assessment year for remaining unutilized additional depreciation. We have gone through the relevant provisions of second proviso to section 32(1)(ii) and 32(1)(iia) of the Act. In the present case before us, the assessee has purchased and installed new plant and machinery for its manufacturing unit

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur vs. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd., Raipur

In the result ground 2 of the CO

ITA 188/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.181/Rpr/2023 (Ay-2010-2011) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 182/Rpr/2023 (Ay:2011-2012) आयकरअपीलसं. /Ita No. 183/Rpr/2023(Ay: 2012-2013) आयकरअपीलसं. /Ita No. 184/Rpr/2023(Ay: 2013-2014) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 185/Rpr/2023(Ay: 2014-2015) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 186/Rpr/2023(Ay: 2015-2016) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 187/Rpr/2023(Ay: 2017-2018) आयकरअपीलसं. /Ita No. 188/Rpr/2023(Ay: 2018-2019) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Circle-1(1), Raipur S Company Limited, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur Vidhyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur Pan: Aadcc6047K & Cross Objection No. 10/Rpr/2023 (2011-12) Cross Objection No. 11/Rpr/2023 (2012-13) Cross Objection No. 12/Rpr/2023 (2014-15) Cross Objection No. 13/Rpr/2023 (2015-16) Cross Objection No. 14/Rpr/2023 (2018-19) Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution V Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Raipur S Vidhyut Seva Bhawan, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur Daganiya, Raipur Pan: Aadcc6047K (अपीलाथ"/Applicant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By : Shri Praveen Khandelwal & Praveen Goyal, Ca'S राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By : Shri Debashish Lahiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2023 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2023

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Khandelwal & PraveenFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)

hands of the assessee will be the value on which depreciation is to be allowed as per the rates prescribed in section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 10.09 In view of the above discussion, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to allow

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur vs. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd., Raipur

In the result ground 2 of the CO

ITA 187/RPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.181/Rpr/2023 (Ay-2010-2011) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 182/Rpr/2023 (Ay:2011-2012) आयकरअपीलसं. /Ita No. 183/Rpr/2023(Ay: 2012-2013) आयकरअपीलसं. /Ita No. 184/Rpr/2023(Ay: 2013-2014) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 185/Rpr/2023(Ay: 2014-2015) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 186/Rpr/2023(Ay: 2015-2016) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 187/Rpr/2023(Ay: 2017-2018) आयकरअपीलसं. /Ita No. 188/Rpr/2023(Ay: 2018-2019) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Circle-1(1), Raipur S Company Limited, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur Vidhyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur Pan: Aadcc6047K & Cross Objection No. 10/Rpr/2023 (2011-12) Cross Objection No. 11/Rpr/2023 (2012-13) Cross Objection No. 12/Rpr/2023 (2014-15) Cross Objection No. 13/Rpr/2023 (2015-16) Cross Objection No. 14/Rpr/2023 (2018-19) Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution V Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Raipur S Vidhyut Seva Bhawan, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur Daganiya, Raipur Pan: Aadcc6047K (अपीलाथ"/Applicant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By : Shri Praveen Khandelwal & Praveen Goyal, Ca'S राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By : Shri Debashish Lahiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2023 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2023

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Khandelwal & PraveenFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)

hands of the assessee will be the value on which depreciation is to be allowed as per the rates prescribed in section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 10.09 In view of the above discussion, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to allow