“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)

West Gujarat Exdpress Way Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -14(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 483/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Niranjan Govindekar a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Kardam

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(3)

Para 28 of its order held that assessee is entitled to collect toll tax, which is an intangible commercial right under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, at the rate as has been prescribed under the relevant rules. 9. It is the golden rule of tax, as laid down ... West Gujarat Expressway Ltd. (supra), for assessment year 2009-10 has held that „right to collect toll‟ is an „intangible asset‟ under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and therefore assessee is entitled to claim depreciation. The relevant findings of the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal are as under

ACIT, Circle-14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. West Gujarat Express Way Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2496/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Niranjan Govindekar a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Kardam

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(3)

M/S. Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2, Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, all these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2593/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri.Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 2593/Bang/2019 M/S. Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Acit, 2015-16 Te Park, 22B, Doddenakundi Corporation, Circle – 2, 2Nd Phase, Industrial Area, Large Taxpayer Unit, Whitefield Road, Bengaluru Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan: Aabct 7374 C 372/Bang/2021 -Do- -Do- 2016-17 200/Bang/2022 -Do- Dcit, Ltu, 2017-18 Circle – 2, Bengaluru. 716/Bang/2022 -Do- Acit, 2018-19 Circle – 7(1)(1), Bengaluru. Assessee By : Shri Sriram Seshadri, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 92Section 92ASection 92F

arising on account of amalgamation has also been considered as an intangible asset being business or commercial right and eligible for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. The AO required the assessee to provide explanation why depreciation claimed on goodwill in computation of income should

M/S Bosch Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu Circle-1, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1629/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14 Bosch Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Hosur Road, Adugodi, Of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore – 560 030. Circle 1, Pan: Aaacm 9840P Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Advocate Respondent By : Shri V S Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S.2. This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Cit(Appeals), Bangalore-9, Bangalore Dated 31.3.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013- 14. 3. The Assessee Raised Grounds Pertaining To The Following Issues:- Deduction U/S. 35(2Ab) Computed On Net Expenditure As Opposed To Gross Expenditure Disallowance Of Provision For Bad & Doubtful Debts I) Disallowance Of Provision For Long Term Service Award Disallowance Of Expenditure U/S. 14A Of The Act Ii) Page 2 Of 67

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 14ASection 35Section 37Section 43BSection 80J

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT

Jt. Comm of Income Tax (OSD), CC - 7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Rajamundry Expressway Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1587/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Us :-

Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 37(1)Section 40A(2)Section 801ASection 80I

acquiring the right to collect annuity, the assessee has acquired a valuable commercial right which is an intangible asset within the meaning of section 32(1)(ii). Thus, he submitted, assessee‟s claim of depreciation has to be allowed. In support of such contention, the learned Counsel for the assessee ... concession. Thus, the investment made by the assessee for acquiring such right certainly is an intangible asset coming within the purview of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, the assessee would be eligible to claim depreciation. The decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the issue is hereby

Dy CIT CC 7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Mumbai Nasik Expressway Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeal by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 851/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.849/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2013-14) आअसं.850/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2014-15) आअसं.851/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2015-16) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc-7(2),Mumbai, Room No.655, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Mumbai Nasik Expressway Ltd. 803, 8Th Floor, A-Wing, One Bkc, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051. Aaecm-3349-K . ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Achal Sharma ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Rakesh Joshi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 04/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Achal SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Joshi

Section 32(1)(i)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 37(1)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण मुंबई पीठ “ एफ़ ” "ी "वकास अव"थी, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अमरजीत "संह, लेखा सद

Dy CIT CC 7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Mumbai Nasik Expressway Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeal by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 850/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Achal SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Joshi

Section 32(1)(i)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 37(1)

Dy CIT CC 7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Mumbai Nasik Expressway Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeal by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 849/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Achal SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Joshi

Section 32(1)(i)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 37(1)

Abbott Healthcare P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 570/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.570/मुं/2018 ("न.व. 2011-12) Abbott Healthcare Private Limited., 4, Corporate Park, Sion -Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai 400 071. Pan: Aaack-3935-D ..... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : S/Shri Raghavendra Singh/ Lokesh Shah/Kiran Belkar ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Smt. Monica Khare सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 04/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: S/Shri Raghavendra Singh/For Respondent: Smt. Monica Khare

Section 254(2)Section 32Section 32(1)

assessee had acquired certain enduring benefits. He was, however, of the opinion that to claim depreciation, the assessee must satisfy the requirement of Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, in which Explanation 3 provides that for the purpose of the said sub-section the expression “assets” would mean ... opinion, no matter what the rights acquired by the assessee through such non-compete agreement, the same would never qualify for depreciation in section 32(1)(ii) of the Act as being depreciable intangible asset. This view was plainly opposed to the well settled principles. In case of Techno Shares

;Marie Gold Realtors P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-CC-8(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 825/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth KotariFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Kabra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

action of not allowing the depreciation on tenancy rights without appreciating the fact that tenancy rights falls within the purview of section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case ... Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998 whereby depreciation is allowed on intangible assets acquired on or after 1-4-1998. As per section 32(1)(ii), depreciation is allowable in respect of know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, being intangible

Marie Gold Realtors P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-CC-8(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 824/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth KotariFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Kabra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

Plus Bksp Toll Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT 15 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7341/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Kavitha Rajagopal () - A.Y. 2012-13 - A.Y. 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32(1)(ii)

Assessing Officer had calculated the allowable amortisation amount as Rs.12,17,04,558/- as against the amount claimed by the assessee under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act at Rs.49,96,15,898/- thereby disallowing the excess amount of depreciation claimed by the assessee. On appeal, the Ld.CIT ... confirmed the addition made under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. With regard to the amortisation over the period of right to collect the toll, the Assessing Officer’s finding in computing the amount of amortisation was upheld by the Ld.CIT(A) on the ground that the assessee

Plus Bksp Toll Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT 15 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7340/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Kavitha Rajagopal () - A.Y. 2012-13 - A.Y. 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32(1)(ii)

DCIT - 3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. V. Hotels Ltd.(Formerly Known As Tulip Hospitality Services Ltd), Mumbai

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

ITA 5664/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Section 32(1)(ii)

that the additional FSI is a business or commercial rights falling within the realm and scope of ‘intangible asset’ within the scope of section 32(1)(ii). The FSI only relates to giving of the right to construct additional floor to the assessee which only goes to enhance the value

DCIT - 3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. V. Hotels Ltd.(Formerly Known As Tulip Hospitality Services Ltd), Mumbai

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

ITA 5663/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Section 32(1)(ii)

DCIT - 3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. V. Hotels Ltd.(Formerly Known As Tulip Hospitality Services Ltd), Mumbai

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

ITA 5662/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Section 32(1)(ii)

Jt. CIT (OSD) CC-7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Mumbai Nashik Expressway Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1590/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blejt.Cit(Osd)-Central Circle -7(2) V. M/S. Mumbai Nasik Expressway Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 655, Aayakar Bhavan Unit 803, 8Th Floor, A-Wing, One Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai -400051 Pan: Aaecm3349K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Kabra Department By : Shri Rajesh Damor

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav KabraFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Damor

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(m)

time in order to recoup the end of the project. Thus, the annuity being an intangible commercial right, falls within the purview of section 32(1 )(ii) of the Act. Further, the said right has been given to the appellant for a specified period with enduring benefit. It is also ... have effect which means it slowly will depreciate to the nil value. As per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, especially under section 32(1)(ii), tie assessee is entitled to claim of depreciation on such type of rights. 6.3 Further, the aforementioned issue is now squarely covered

Tata International Ltd ( for Erstwhile Bachi Shoes Ltd), Vellore vs. ACIT Circle 1, Vellore

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

ITA 1523/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Tata International Limited V. Acit – Circle – 1 {Erstwhile Bachi Shoes Ltd} No.2, 2Nd Floor No. 147, Sidco Industrial Estate Central Revenue Building Sipcot, Ranipet – 632403 Barracks Cross Street Officers Line, Vellore -632001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Aastha Shah Department By : Shri Rajesh Damor Date Of Hearing : 02.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2022 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman (Am) 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–13, Chennai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 05.03.2018 For The A.Y. 2013-14. 2. Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds In Its Appeal: - “The Appellant Objects To The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)'S Order Dismissing The Appeal Against The Assessment Order, For 2013-14 Aly I) Omitting To Reduce The Adjustments Of Rs. 5,69,560 U/S 145A As Per Letter Dated 25.2.2016;

For Appellant: Ms. Aastha ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Damor

Section 145ASection 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40

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

Dy CIT Circle- 12(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Archroma India Pvt Ltd., Thane

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 590/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – Circle – 12(1)(1) V. M/S. Archroma India Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 128C, 1St Floor 9Th Floor, D Building Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mbc Park, Ghodbunder Road Mumbai - 400020 Kasawadavali, Thane Mumbai - 400615 Pan: Aaaca8270F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agrawal Department By : Ms. Shailaja Rai

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Ms. Shailaja Rai

Section 170Section 2(42)Section 2(42)(C)Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 50BSection 5O

Network (CDN) is an eligible intangible assets or the same can be recharacterised as goodwill for the purpose of applying tax depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) of the income tax act. 14. Learned counsel further submitted that even if WDV of the transferor is adopted the balancing figure

Jt. CIT (OSD), CC-7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Andhra Expressway Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1588/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1588/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1589/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Jcit (Osd), Cc-7(2), M/S Andhra Expressway Ltd. R. No. 655, Aayakar बनाम/ Ground Floor, Gammon Bhavan, M. K. Road, House, Veer Savarkar Vs. Mumbai-400020 Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400 025 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aadca3577E (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Smt. Shailja Rai, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By Shri Rakesh Joshi, Ld. Ar : सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 01.06.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 24.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 29.06.2021, Passed By 2

For Appellant: Smt. Shailja Rai, Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 80I

recoup the cost of the project. Thus, the right to collect toll being an intangible commercial right, falls within the purview of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Further, the said right has been given to the appellant for a specified period with enduring benefit. It is also ... I.T.A. No. 1588 & 1589/Mum/2021 M/s Andhra Expressway Ltd. value. As per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, especially under section 32(1)(ii), the Appellant is entitled to claim of depreciation on such type of rights. 7.2.2. The CBDT has issued Circular No. 09/2014 dated 23.04.2014, in which