← 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)

Srf Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 80/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92BSection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘H’: NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK

International Seaport (Haldia) Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-12(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 328/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.328/Kol/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) International Seaport (Haldia) Vs Acit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata Private Limited, C/O S.N.Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata-700001 Pan No. :Aaci 9468 D (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Santanu Ghosh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 06.02.2023 For The Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld.Ar That Two Issues Are Involved In The Assessee’S Appeal, One Is The Denial Of The Deduction U/S.80Ia Of The Act In Respect Of Miscellaneous Income To An Extra Rs.4,99,372/- & The Second Issue Was Disallowance Of The Disallowance Of The Amortization Of The Leasehold Rent Allegedly By The Ao Claiming The Same To Be Claim Of Depreciation To An Extent Of Rs.42,32,776/-. It Was Submission That In Respect Of The One Number Imported Slewing Ring Roller Bearing From The Original Manufacturer Of The Same I.E. Rothe Erde, Germany, Which Was An Important & Expensive Spare Required For The Operation Of The Stacking &

For Respondent: Shri Santanu Ghosh, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT

M/S Gera Developments Pvt. Ltd, Pune vs. PCIT (Central), Pune

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

ITA 1053/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

United Breweries Ltd. It is based on this fact that, the Hon'ble Bangalore Bench, in the context of 5th Proviso to section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, has held that the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of Smifts Securities

Marvell India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1608/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudharym/S. Marvell India Private Limited 10Th Floor, Tower D & E Global Technology Park, Marathahalli Outer Ring Road Devarabeesanahalli Village Varthurhobli Bangalore 560 103 ………. Appellant [Pan: Aaecm5559R]

For Appellant: Sri Chavali NarayanFor Respondent: Sri Muthu Shankar
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 200ASection 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 270ASection 274Section 28

pertains to disallowance of claim of depreciation amounting to INR.3,08,21,235/- made by the Assessee during the relevant previous year under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act in respect of goodwill on intangible assets. 7.1. On perusal of records, we find that during the relevant previous year

Viacom 18, Media Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT-8, Mumbai

ITA 2591/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Agarwal/Ms. MokshaFor Respondent: Mr. Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 32

involving mid-year amalgamation). Significantly, the proviso was introduced even before intangible assets, including goodwill, came to be recognised as depreciable assets under section 32(1)(ii). Thus, the legislative intent behind the proviso cannot be stretched to deny depreciation on goodwill that did not exist in the books ... Securities Ltd. [2012] 348 ITR 302 (SC), holding that goodwill constitutes a “business or commercial right of similar nature” eligible for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii). This principle has been consistently followed in subsequent decisions, including Padmini Products (P.) Ltd. (Karnataka HC), Thermo Fisher Scientific India (P.) Ltd. (ITAT

Gbt India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, OSD, Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed as above

ITA 1764/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

section 43(1) of the Act, Explanation 2 to section 43(6) of the Act and sixth proviso to section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, submitted that the depreciation on goodwill was not allowable. He placed reliance on the decision in United Breweries Ltd. 76 taxmann.com ... section 43(1) of the Act, Explanation 2 to section 43(6) of the Act and sixth proviso to section 32(1)(ii) of the Act did not get attracted. The decision in the case of United Breweries Ltd. (supra) was in respect of amalgamation between group companies

M/S. Barbeque Nation Hospitality Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

ITA 26/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. A. Shankar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. M. Mahesh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

holding company and booked a difference of Rs.13.45 Crores in the books as goodwill and depreciation was claimed @ 25% as per section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. The valuation of Rs.28.10 Crores was made without any scientific basis and only on the basis of assumption and exaggeration of valuation

M/S. Barbeque Nation Hospitality Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

ITA 25/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Respondent: Shri. A. Shankar, Sr. Advocate
Section 132Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

holding company and booked a difference of Rs.13.45 Crores in the books as goodwill and depreciation was claimed @ 25% as per section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. The valuation of Rs.28.10 Crores was made without any scientific basis and only on the basis of assumption and exaggeration of valuation

M/S. Barbeque Nation Hospitality Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 24/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. A. Shankar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. M. Mahesh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

holding company and booked a difference of Rs.13.45 Crores in the books as goodwill and depreciation was claimed @ 25% as per section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. The valuation of Rs.28.10 Crores was made without any scientific basis and only on the basis of assumption and exaggeration of valuation ... determined, depreciation allow become in ITA Nos.21 to 26/Bang/2024 Page 45 of 47 subsequent years automatically as per computation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and there are no material changes in the facts or law. The Revenue is bound to maintain consistency and cannot be disallowed

M/S. Barbeque Nation Hospitality Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Officer, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

ITA 23/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

holding company and booked a difference of Rs.13.45 Crores in the books as goodwill and depreciation was claimed @ 25% as per section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. The valuation of Rs.28.10 Crores was made without any scientific basis and only on the basis of assumption and exaggeration of valuation ... determined, depreciation allow become in Page 44 of 47 ITA Nos.21 to 26/Bang/2024 subsequent years automatically as per computation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and there are no material changes in the facts or law. The Revenue is bound to maintain consistency and cannot be disallowed

M/S. Barbeque Nation Hospitality Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 22/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. A. Shankar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. M. Mahesh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

holding company and booked a difference of Rs.13.45 Crores in the books as goodwill and depreciation was claimed @ 25% as per section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. The valuation of Rs.28.10 Crores was made without any scientific basis and only on the basis of assumption and exaggeration of valuation ... determined, depreciation allow become in ITA Nos.21 to 26/Bang/2024 Page 45 of 47 subsequent years automatically as per computation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and there are no material changes in the facts or law. The Revenue is bound to maintain consistency and cannot be disallowed

M/S. Barbeque Nation Hospitality Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 21/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. A. Shankar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. M. Mahesh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

holding company and booked a difference of Rs.13.45 Crores in the books as goodwill and depreciation was claimed @ 25% as per section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. The valuation of Rs.28.10 Crores was made without any scientific basis and only on the basis of assumption and exaggeration of valuation ... determined, depreciation allow become in ITA Nos.21 to 26/Bang/2024 Page 45 of 47 subsequent years automatically as per computation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and there are no material changes in the facts or law. The Revenue is bound to maintain consistency and cannot be disallowed

DCIT CC 8(2), Mumbai vs. Echjay Industries Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5437/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Respondent: Mr. N.R. Rao, Adv
Section 32Section 32(1)

wherein it was categorically held that goodwill wherein it was categorically held that goodwill constitutes an “intangible asset” within the meaning of Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. “intangible asset” within the meaning of Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. “intangible asset” within the meaning of Section 32 ... amalgamation constitutes an intangible that goodwill acquired on amalgamation constitutes an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under Sectio asset eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii). The Hon’ble n 32(1)(ii). The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Bombay High Court in Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. (supra

DCIT CC 8(2), Mumbai vs. Echjay Industries Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5436/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Respondent: Mr. N.R. Rao, Adv
Section 32Section 32(1)

wherein it was categorically held that goodwill wherein it was categorically held that goodwill constitutes an “intangible asset” within the meaning of Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. “intangible asset” within the meaning of Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. “intangible asset” within the meaning of Section 32 ... amalgamation constitutes an intangible that goodwill acquired on amalgamation constitutes an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under Sectio asset eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii). The Hon’ble n 32(1)(ii). The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Bombay High Court in Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. (supra

Incometax Officer, Chennai vs. Doosan Bobcat India Pvt Ltd, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2137/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2137/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 & C.O. No. 75/Chny/2025 [In I.T.A. No. 2137/Chny/2025] The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Doosan Bobcat India Pvt. Ltd., Htc Towers, 6Th Floor, No. 41, Gst Corporate Ward 2(1), Chennai. Road, Guindy Industrial Estate, Chennai 600 032. [Pan: Aaccd6529L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ashik Shah, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C.P. Solomon, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.05.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appellant-Revenue Raised 6 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Allowing Assessee’S Claim Of Depreciation Under Section 2

For Appellant: Shri Ashik Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.P. Solomon, JCIT
Section 2Section 32(1)(ii)

base without appreciating that the said assets do not fall within the scope of intangible assets as defined in Explanation 3(b) to section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. He vehemently argued that the ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assets claimed by the assessee ... benefit to the assessee. He argued vehemently that the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the provisions of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and the intent of the legislature, which requires that only certain specifically enumerated intangible assets are eligible for depreciation

DCIT, Circle- 2(1), New Delhi vs. Akorn India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6838/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1743/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम Akorn India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, 4Th Floor, Building 9B, Vs. Circle 2(1), Dlf Cyber City, Gurgaon. New Delhi. Pan No.Aajca8290J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2074/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम Acit, Akorn India Pvt. Ltd. Circle 2(1), Room No.153A, Vs. 1105-1106, Ashoka Estate, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aajca8290J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6566/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 बनाम Akorn India Pvt. Ltd. Acit, 4Th Floor, Building 9B, Vs. Circle 2(1), C.R. Building, Dlf Cyber City, Gurgaon. I.P. Estate, New Delhi. Pan No.Aajca8290J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6837/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 बनाम Dcit, Akorn India Pvt. Ltd. Circle 2(1), Room No.153A, Vs. 1105-1106, Ashoka Estate, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aajca8290J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 139(5)Section 50C

compete fee of Rs 20,00,00,000/- represent business or commercial rights in accordance with the provisions of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. The assessee clearly mentioned the aforesaid facts in the notes to financial statements and also in Form 3CD by stating that it reserves

DCIT, Circle- 2(1), New Delhi vs. Akorn India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6837/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1743/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम Akorn India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, 4Th Floor, Building 9B, Vs. Circle 2(1), Dlf Cyber City, Gurgaon. New Delhi. Pan No.Aajca8290J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2074/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम Acit, Akorn India Pvt. Ltd. Circle 2(1), Room No.153A, Vs. 1105-1106, Ashoka Estate, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aajca8290J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6566/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 बनाम Akorn India Pvt. Ltd. Acit, 4Th Floor, Building 9B, Vs. Circle 2(1), C.R. Building, Dlf Cyber City, Gurgaon. I.P. Estate, New Delhi. Pan No.Aajca8290J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6837/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 बनाम Dcit, Akorn India Pvt. Ltd. Circle 2(1), Room No.153A, Vs. 1105-1106, Ashoka Estate, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aajca8290J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 139(5)Section 50C

compete fee of Rs 20,00,00,000/- represent business or commercial rights in accordance with the provisions of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. The assessee clearly mentioned the aforesaid facts in the notes to financial statements and also in Form 3CD by stating that it reserves

Akorn India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), New Delhi

ITA 6567/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1743/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम Akorn India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, 4Th Floor, Building 9B, Vs. Circle 2(1), Dlf Cyber City, Gurgaon. New Delhi. Pan No.Aajca8290J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2074/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम Acit, Akorn India Pvt. Ltd. Circle 2(1), Room No.153A, Vs. 1105-1106, Ashoka Estate, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aajca8290J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6566/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 बनाम Akorn India Pvt. Ltd. Acit, 4Th Floor, Building 9B, Vs. Circle 2(1), C.R. Building, Dlf Cyber City, Gurgaon. I.P. Estate, New Delhi. Pan No.Aajca8290J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6837/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 बनाम Dcit, Akorn India Pvt. Ltd. Circle 2(1), Room No.153A, Vs. 1105-1106, Ashoka Estate, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aajca8290J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 139(5)Section 50C

compete fee of Rs 20,00,00,000/- represent business or commercial rights in accordance with the provisions of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. The assessee clearly mentioned the aforesaid facts in the notes to financial statements and also in Form 3CD by stating that it reserves

Akorn India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), New Delhi

ITA 6566/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1743/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम Akorn India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, 4Th Floor, Building 9B, Vs. Circle 2(1), Dlf Cyber City, Gurgaon. New Delhi. Pan No.Aajca8290J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2074/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम Acit, Akorn India Pvt. Ltd. Circle 2(1), Room No.153A, Vs. 1105-1106, Ashoka Estate, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aajca8290J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6566/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 बनाम Akorn India Pvt. Ltd. Acit, 4Th Floor, Building 9B, Vs. Circle 2(1), C.R. Building, Dlf Cyber City, Gurgaon. I.P. Estate, New Delhi. Pan No.Aajca8290J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6837/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 बनाम Dcit, Akorn India Pvt. Ltd. Circle 2(1), Room No.153A, Vs. 1105-1106, Ashoka Estate, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aajca8290J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 139(5)Section 50C

compete fee of Rs 20,00,00,000/- represent business or commercial rights in accordance with the provisions of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. The assessee clearly mentioned the aforesaid facts in the notes to financial statements and also in Form 3CD by stating that it reserves

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Akorn India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2074/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1743/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम Akorn India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, 4Th Floor, Building 9B, Vs. Circle 2(1), Dlf Cyber City, Gurgaon. New Delhi. Pan No.Aajca8290J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2074/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम Acit, Akorn India Pvt. Ltd. Circle 2(1), Room No.153A, Vs. 1105-1106, Ashoka Estate, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aajca8290J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6566/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 बनाम Akorn India Pvt. Ltd. Acit, 4Th Floor, Building 9B, Vs. Circle 2(1), C.R. Building, Dlf Cyber City, Gurgaon. I.P. Estate, New Delhi. Pan No.Aajca8290J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6837/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 बनाम Dcit, Akorn India Pvt. Ltd. Circle 2(1), Room No.153A, Vs. 1105-1106, Ashoka Estate, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aajca8290J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 139(5)Section 50C

compete fee of Rs 20,00,00,000/- represent business or commercial rights in accordance with the provisions of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. The assessee clearly mentioned the aforesaid facts in the notes to financial statements and also in Form 3CD by stating that it reserves