← 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 4(3), Mumbai vs. Jm Morgan Stanley Securities P. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2637/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2003-04
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. Asst CIT RG 4(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1952/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2003-04
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

ACIT 4(3), 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 1235/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2009-10
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 RG 4(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1018/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2009-10
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

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

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

ITA 831/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2007-08
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 RG 4(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 7675/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2007-08
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

Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Co. Ltd., Raipur vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur

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

ITA 24/RPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur15 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.16/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. O/O. Executive Director-Finance Ground Floor, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5772F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.24/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. Ground Floor, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5772F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32

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

The Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited, Raipur, Raipur (Cg) vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax 1(2), Raipur, Raipur (Cg)

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

ITA 16/BIL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur15 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.16/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. O/O. Executive Director-Finance Ground Floor, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5772F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.24/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. Ground Floor, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5772F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32

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

Tha ACIT, Circle Morbi, Morbi vs. M/S. Jaxx Vitrified Pvt. Ltd., Morbi

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 260/RJT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)

intension was not to deny the benefit to the assets who have acquired or instated new machinery or plant. The second proviso to section 32(1)(ii) restricts the allowances only to 50% where the assets have been acquired and part to use for a period less than 160 days

ACIT, Circle-19(1), New Delhi vs. Ongc Videsh Limited, New Delhi

ITA 2185/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaacit, Vs. Ongc Videsh Limited Circle-19(1), Tower-B5, Nelson Mandela New Delhi Marg, Vasant Kinj, New Delhi Pan : Aaaco1230F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 32Section 37(1)Section 42

this Bench, the ground is decided against the Revenue :- “11. Grounds No.4 & 5 relate to the disallowance to depreciation on support equipment under section 32 (1)(ii). Disallowance of depreciation on supporting equipments pertained to Myanmar A-I & A-3, Block 81-1 Libya, Block ONGC Videsh

Dy CIT CC 1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 931/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115Section 32Section 32ASection 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND

Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 465/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115Section 32Section 32ASection 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND

Bsc C&C Kurali Toll Road Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-5(1), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3141/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Amarjit Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 32(1)(ii)

have no doubt to hold that the assessee is entitled to collect tax being an intangible commercial right under section 32(1)(ii) at the rate as has been prescribed under the relevant rules. Our above view is further supported by the decision of the co-ordinate Pune bench ... terms that the claim of the assessee for depreciation on "licence to collect toll" being an 'intangible asset' falling within the scope of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act is liable to be upheld. The relevant part of findings of the Tribunal for the sake of convenience is reproduced

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle -1, Nashik vs. Mahakaleshwar Tollways Private Limited, Ujjain

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 123/IND/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Judicial Memebr & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 123/Ind/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

Build Operate and Transfer” project (i.e. cost of project) by considering such expenditure as an intangible asset within the meaning of section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act? ITA No.123/Ind/20212 2. The ld.CIT(A) was not justified in law holding that the assesse is eligible for depreciation ... claimed that the "Right to collect Toll" obtained by it was akin to a license, being an 'intangible asset' within the meaning of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and claimed depreciation @ 25%, In the Income Tax assessments completed U/s 143(3). The AO held that the" Right

The ACIT, Kochi vs. M/S.Cochin Shipyard Ltd, Kochi

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 659/COCH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. ARFor Respondent: S/Shri Rajasekharan & K. Gopi, CAs
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40

amount of Rs.53,77,981 for AY 2009-10 u/s. 32(1)(iia). The assessee submitted that as per 2nd proviso to section 32(1)(ii), the depreciation allowance is restricted to 50% where the assets have been put to use for a period of less than 180 days ... taxmann.com 4 (Karnataka) for sustaining the view taken by the Tribunal. It is also argued that the clarificatory amendment made to section 32(1)(ii) with effect from 01.10.2016 also supports the deduction claimed by the assessee. The amendment, no doubt, was introduced with effect from 01.10.2016, is a clarificatory

The ACIT, Kochi vs. M/S.Cochin Shipyard Ltd, Kochi

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 658/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. ARFor Respondent: S/Shri Rajasekharan & K. Gopi, CAs
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40

amount of Rs.53,77,981 for AY 2009-10 u/s. 32(1)(iia). The assessee submitted that as per 2nd proviso to section 32(1)(ii), the depreciation allowance is restricted to 50% where the assets have been put to use for a period of less than 180 days ... taxmann.com 4 (Karnataka) for sustaining the view taken by the Tribunal. It is also argued that the clarificatory amendment made to section 32(1)(ii) with effect from 01.10.2016 also supports the deduction claimed by the assessee. The amendment, no doubt, was introduced with effect from 01.10.2016, is a clarificatory

The ACIT, Kochi vs. M/S.Cochin Shipyard Ltd, Kochi

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 657/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. ARFor Respondent: S/Shri Rajasekharan & K. Gopi, CAs
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40

amount of Rs.53,77,981 for AY 2009-10 u/s. 32(1)(iia). The assessee submitted that as per 2nd proviso to section 32(1)(ii), the depreciation allowance is restricted to 50% where the assets have been put to use for a period of less than 180 days ... taxmann.com 4 (Karnataka) for sustaining the view taken by the Tribunal. It is also argued that the clarificatory amendment made to section 32(1)(ii) with effect from 01.10.2016 also supports the deduction claimed by the assessee. The amendment, no doubt, was introduced with effect from 01.10.2016, is a clarificatory

The ACIT, Kochi vs. M/S.Cochin Shipyard Ltd, Kochi

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 656/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. ARFor Respondent: S/Shri Rajasekharan & K. Gopi, CAs
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40

amount of Rs.53,77,981 for AY 2009-10 u/s. 32(1)(iia). The assessee submitted that as per 2nd proviso to section 32(1)(ii), the depreciation allowance is restricted to 50% where the assets have been put to use for a period of less than 180 days ... taxmann.com 4 (Karnataka) for sustaining the view taken by the Tribunal. It is also argued that the clarificatory amendment made to section 32(1)(ii) with effect from 01.10.2016 also supports the deduction claimed by the assessee. The amendment, no doubt, was introduced with effect from 01.10.2016, is a clarificatory

The ACIT, Kochi vs. M/S.Cochin Shipyard Ltd, Kochi

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 655/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. ARFor Respondent: S/Shri Rajasekharan & K. Gopi, CAs
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40

amount of Rs.53,77,981 for AY 2009-10 u/s. 32(1)(iia). The assessee submitted that as per 2nd proviso to section 32(1)(ii), the depreciation allowance is restricted to 50% where the assets have been put to use for a period of less than 180 days ... taxmann.com 4 (Karnataka) for sustaining the view taken by the Tribunal. It is also argued that the clarificatory amendment made to section 32(1)(ii) with effect from 01.10.2016 also supports the deduction claimed by the assessee. The amendment, no doubt, was introduced with effect from 01.10.2016, is a clarificatory

M/S. Croda India Company Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Pr. Comm of Income Tax, Mumbai-6

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1439/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 32Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35Section 43(6)

plant or furniture, the prescribed percentage of depreciation is to be computed on the basis of "written down value" of the asset [See : section 32(1)( ii)]. This is known as "written-down value" method. Both these methods seek to ensure that the total depreciation allowance(s) granted, year after