← 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)

Income Tax Officer-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Andhra Pradesh Expressway Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 999/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2023AY 2014-2015
For Appellant: Shri Ajay VohraFor Respondent: Ms. N. V. Nadkarni (DR)
Section 32(1)(ii)

allow the depreciation on road constructed by it under BOT basis as an “intangible asset”, since its claim falls within the scope of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, and consequently held the revenue’s cross objection regarding amortization of the cost as academic. According to Ld. Sr. Counsel ... capital expenditure, whether the same is eligible for depreciation at the rate applicable to building or to an intangible asset as per section 32(1(ii)? And, if not, whether the same being Revenue expenditure is liable to be amortized over the period of concession? 10. And thereafter

Income Tax Officer-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Andra Pradesh Expressway Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 998/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2023AY 2013-2014
For Appellant: Shri Ajay VohraFor Respondent: Ms. N. V. Nadkarni (DR)
Section 32(1)(ii)

allow the depreciation on road constructed by it under BOT basis as an “intangible asset”, since its claim falls within the scope of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, and consequently held the revenue’s cross objection regarding amortization of the cost as academic. According to Ld. Sr. Counsel ... capital expenditure, whether the same is eligible for depreciation at the rate applicable to building or to an intangible asset as per section 32(1(ii)? And, if not, whether the same being Revenue expenditure is liable to be amortized over the period of concession? 10. And thereafter

Andhra Pradesh Expressway Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-10(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1528/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2023AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Ajay VohraFor Respondent: Ms. N. V. Nadkarni (DR)
Section 32(1)(ii)

allow the depreciation on road constructed by it under BOT basis as an “intangible asset”, since its claim falls within the scope of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, and consequently held the revenue’s cross objection regarding amortization of the cost as academic. According to Ld. Sr. Counsel ... capital expenditure, whether the same is eligible for depreciation at the rate applicable to building or to an intangible asset as per section 32(1(ii)? And, if not, whether the same being Revenue expenditure is liable to be amortized over the period of concession? 10. And thereafter

Andhra Pradesh Expressway Limited, Mumbai City vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1526/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2023AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Ajay VohraFor Respondent: Ms. N. V. Nadkarni (DR)
Section 32(1)(ii)

allow the depreciation on road constructed by it under BOT basis as an “intangible asset”, since its claim falls within the scope of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, and consequently held the revenue’s cross objection regarding amortization of the cost as academic. According to Ld. Sr. Counsel ... capital expenditure, whether the same is eligible for depreciation at the rate applicable to building or to an intangible asset as per section 32(1(ii)? And, if not, whether the same being Revenue expenditure is liable to be amortized over the period of concession? 10. And thereafter

M/S Andhra Pradesh Expressway Limited, Mumbai vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1525/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2023AY 2018-2019
For Appellant: Shri Ajay VohraFor Respondent: Ms. N. V. Nadkarni (DR)
Section 32(1)(ii)

allow the depreciation on road constructed by it under BOT basis as an “intangible asset”, since its claim falls within the scope of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, and consequently held the revenue’s cross objection regarding amortization of the cost as academic. According to Ld. Sr. Counsel ... capital expenditure, whether the same is eligible for depreciation at the rate applicable to building or to an intangible asset as per section 32(1(ii)? And, if not, whether the same being Revenue expenditure is liable to be amortized over the period of concession? 10. And thereafter

Income Tax Officer-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Andhra Pradesh Expressway Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1523/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2023AY 2018-2019
For Appellant: Shri Ajay VohraFor Respondent: Ms. N. V. Nadkarni (DR)
Section 32(1)(ii)

allow the depreciation on road constructed by it under BOT basis as an “intangible asset”, since its claim falls within the scope of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, and consequently held the revenue’s cross objection regarding amortization of the cost as academic. According to Ld. Sr. Counsel ... capital expenditure, whether the same is eligible for depreciation at the rate applicable to building or to an intangible asset as per section 32(1(ii)? And, if not, whether the same being Revenue expenditure is liable to be amortized over the period of concession? 10. And thereafter

Income Tax Officer-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Andhra Pradesh Expressway Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1522/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2023AY 2011-2012
For Appellant: Shri Ajay VohraFor Respondent: Ms. N. V. Nadkarni (DR)
Section 32(1)(ii)

allow the depreciation on road constructed by it under BOT basis as an “intangible asset”, since its claim falls within the scope of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, and consequently held the revenue’s cross objection regarding amortization of the cost as academic. According to Ld. Sr. Counsel ... capital expenditure, whether the same is eligible for depreciation at the rate applicable to building or to an intangible asset as per section 32(1(ii)? And, if not, whether the same being Revenue expenditure is liable to be amortized over the period of concession? 10. And thereafter

Income Tax Officer-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Andhra Pradesh Expressway Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1521/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2023AY 2015-2016
For Appellant: Shri Ajay VohraFor Respondent: Ms. N. V. Nadkarni (DR)
Section 32(1)(ii)

allow the depreciation on road constructed by it under BOT basis as an “intangible asset”, since its claim falls within the scope of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, and consequently held the revenue’s cross objection regarding amortization of the cost as academic. According to Ld. Sr. Counsel ... capital expenditure, whether the same is eligible for depreciation at the rate applicable to building or to an intangible asset as per section 32(1(ii)? And, if not, whether the same being Revenue expenditure is liable to be amortized over the period of concession? 10. And thereafter

Income Tax Officer-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Andhra Pradesh Expressway Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1000/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2023AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Ajay VohraFor Respondent: Ms. N. V. Nadkarni (DR)
Section 32(1)(ii)

allow the depreciation on road constructed by it under BOT basis as an “intangible asset”, since its claim falls within the scope of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, and consequently held the revenue’s cross objection regarding amortization of the cost as academic. According to Ld. Sr. Counsel ... capital expenditure, whether the same is eligible for depreciation at the rate applicable to building or to an intangible asset as per section 32(1(ii)? And, if not, whether the same being Revenue expenditure is liable to be amortized over the period of concession? 10. And thereafter

Shree Cement Limited, Beawar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ajmer

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 152/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT
Section 115JSection 250Section 32(1)(ii)Section 80Section 80I

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U

Thermo Fisher Scientific India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT-15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 769/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Thermo Fisher Scientific India Dy. Cit-15(3)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 360, Aayakar Vs. 403-404, ‘B’ Wing, Delphi, Bhavan, New Marine Lines, Hiranandani Business Park, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400076. Pan No. Aabct 3207 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Mr. Mudit Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 43(1)

erred in relying on the erstwhile learned DCIT and Hon'ble DR erred in relying on the erstwhile fifth proviso to section 32(1) (ii) [now sixth proviso to section so to section 32(1) (ii) [now sixth proviso to section so to section 32(1) (ii) [now sixth proviso ... section 32(1) (ii)I read with Explanation 1 to section 43(6) of the IT Act 32(1) (ii)I read with Explanation 1 to section 43(6) of the IT Act 32(1) (ii)I read with Explanation 1 to section

Wns Global Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Comm. of Income Tax -14(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2451/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234CSection 43BSection 92C

business which it sold to the assessee. Accordingly it was submitted that the same would fall within the definition of intangible assets under section 32(1)(ii) i.e. "business of commercial rights of similar nature". The assessee relied on the following decisions in this regard – (i) Areva ... contention of the assessee that the customer contracts and non-compete fee falls within the definition of 'intangible assets’ as enumerated in section 32(1)(ii) and therefore, disallowed the depreciation on the same. The DRP gave relief to the assessee with respect to the depreciation on customer contract with

Wns Global Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Comm. of Income Tax-14(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2450/MUM/2022[208-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2023

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234CSection 43BSection 92C

business which it sold to the assessee. Accordingly it was submitted that the same would fall within the definition of intangible assets under section 32(1)(ii) i.e. "business of commercial rights of similar nature". The assessee relied on the following decisions in this regard – (i) Areva ... contention of the assessee that the customer contracts and non-compete fee falls within the definition of 'intangible assets’ as enumerated in section 32(1)(ii) and therefore, disallowed the depreciation on the same. The DRP gave relief to the assessee with respect to the depreciation on customer contract with

DCIT, Circle- 25(1), New Delhi vs. Telecommunication Consultants India Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3801/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 3801/Del/2018, A.Y. 2013-14 Dcit, Vs. M/S.Telecommunication Circle-25(1), Consultants India Ltd. New Delhi 106, Plot No. 4, Vishwadeep Tower, District Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058 Pan : Aaact0061H Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 32

therefore, the expenditure incurred by such date should be the value of intangible asset which can alone be considered for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. We are afraid, we cannot accept the above argument of the learned Senior Standing Counsel. When the C.A. confers a right ... enduring nature for the assessee, it is necessary now to examine whether such intangible asset comes within the scope and ambit of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. For this purpose, it is necessary to look into the said provision which is reproduced hereunder for the sake of convenience

B.C. Bhuyan Construction Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle- 1(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 356/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Girish Agrawalwalassessment Year : 2014-15 B.C.Bhuyan Construction Pvt B.C.Bhuyan Construction Pvt Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle Dcit, Corporate Circle - Ltd., Plot No.90, Palasuni, Ltd., Plot No.90, Palasuni, 1(1), Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aadcb 3304 N (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.C.Sethi, Adv Revenue By Revenue By : Shri Saroj Kumar Mahapatra, Saroj Kumar Mahapatra, Pr. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/07 7/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/0 /07/2023

For Appellant: Shri P.C.SethiFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Mahapatra
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

notice, in which question arose as to whether individual bottles can be regarded as plant for the purpose of the first proviso to section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and this Court held that each bottle can be regarded as a plant and the assessee is entitled to claim ... Bench, observed as follows: "... We do not see any foundation for such a view within the four corners of the proviso to section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. The benefit of the proviso is not confined only to units in bulk where the cost of each unit is less

ACIT Circle-4(2), New Delhi vs. Beacon Higher Education Services Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 2335/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 154Section 2Section 32(1)(ii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Saktijit Dey, Vice President Dr. B. R

Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-4(1), Raipur

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

ITA 81/RPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.81/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd. Executive Director (Fin.), Csptcl, Second Floor, Sldc Building, Cseb Office Campus, Danginiya Raipur-492 013 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5773E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

examine the approach of the assessee while making the claim of depreciation. In this context, we may refer to the provisions of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act which provides for allowance and rate of depreciation. It has been pointed out that as per section 32(1)(ii ... 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

Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Limited, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Raipur

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

ITA 143/RPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.81/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd. Executive Director (Fin.), Csptcl, Second Floor, Sldc Building, Cseb Office Campus, Danginiya Raipur-492 013 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5773E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

examine the approach of the assessee while making the claim of depreciation. In this context, we may refer to the provisions of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act which provides for allowance and rate of depreciation. It has been pointed out that as per section 32(1)(ii ... 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

DCIT Cir. 4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Morgan Stanley India Co. Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and ground of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2720/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2008-09
Section 32(1)Section 40Section 40A(2)Section 92Section 92CSection 92C(2)

entitled to depreciation on BSE membership card, as the said right of membership is a licence or akin to licence in terms of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. In the present case, the claim of the assessee was denied by placing reliance upon the decision

Morgan Stanley India Company P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 4(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and ground of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1714/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2008-09
Section 32(1)Section 40Section 40A(2)Section 92Section 92CSection 92C(2)

entitled to depreciation on BSE membership card, as the said right of membership is a licence or akin to licence in terms of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. In the present case, the claim of the assessee was denied by placing reliance upon the decision