← 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)

Akorn India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 1743/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

Tata Teleservices Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 25(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2549/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.2549/Del./2024, A.Y. 2017-18 Tata Teleservices Limited Assistant Commissioner Of Jeevan Bharati Tower-1, Income Tax, Circle-25(1), 10Th Floor, Vs. C. R. Building, I. P. Estate, 24, Connaught Circus New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaact2438A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Advocate Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advocate & Sh. Shivam Yadav, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 30/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/10/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal Of The Assessee For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.03.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 35DSection 37(1)

correct. However, the assessee is eligible for getting depreciation on the said disallowed amount treating the same as an intangible asset as per section 32(1)(ii). The Assessing Officer is, therefore, directed to allow depreciation as per rate prescribed in Income Tax Rules, for intangible assets on the entire ... Micro Finance Ltd. (AO also relied on these case laws), held that customer base was an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act though these decisions were not applicable in the case in hand as the facts of 6 Tata Teleservices Limited those cases

JCIT(OSD), CC-1, Lko, Lucknow vs. Acp Tollways Private Limited, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed and the Cross

ITA 131/LKW/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(2)Section 32

date of concessionaire agreement 6.7Another ground raised by the appellant is whether the right to collect toll is a capital asset under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act or not. For the sake of clarity section 32(1)(ii) of the Act is reproduced hereunder:- "32. (1 ... collect toll for the specified period only after incurring expenditure through its own sources on development, construction and maintenance of infrastructure facility. Section 32(1)(ii) of the acts talks about the intangible assets, Right to collect toll is an asset in the nature of licence. Section 32(1)(ii

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-16(1), Mumbai vs. Viacom18 Media Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 5658/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Respondent: Shri Nimesh Vora, Ld. Adv
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

amount of “non- compete fee” by observing and holding as under:- 8. Whether non-compete fee is eligible for depreciation? Section 32(1)(ii) prescribes for depreciation in respect of know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licenses, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature being intangible assets ... above mentioned six items cannot be treated as intangible assets qualified for depreciation. 8. 2. In this context, the aspects need examination: • • • • • • • • that section 32(1)(ii) uses the words 'any other business or commercial rights of similar nature'. that by using the words 'similar nature', the Legislature has restricted

Diwantham Tollway Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -6, Mubmai

In the result, the grounds of appeal

ITA 3711/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Prabhash Shankar(Physical Hearing) Diwantham Tollway Private Limited Pcit – 6, Mumbai Unit No. 603B, 6Th Floor, Godrej Bkkc, Room No. 501, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs Plot No. C-68, G Block, Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400051. [Pan: Aagcd6193G] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 254(1)Section 263Section 32

license agreement, the assessee has given various rights, such business rights are business or commercial rights as envisaged under the provisions of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. The assessee capitalised the concession fees paid to NHAI in the block of “intangible asset”. In A.Y. 2019- 20 and claimed ... collect the toll. Hence, the aforesaid expenses were capitalised and added to the block of ‘intangible asset’ and depreciation has been claimed under section 32(1)(ii). In earlier assessment year, the similar depreciation on intangible asset was allowed to the assessee. During the assessment proceedings,the assessing officer issued

Bakeri Projects Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee on this ground are allowed

ITA 785/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-D.R
Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 32Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)

various judicial precedents including that of Supreme Court and Gujarat High Court, assessee claimed depreciation of Rs. 24,03,04,786 under section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") during the year under consideration on the goodwill of Rs. 96,12,19,145 recognized during ... principle of ejusdem generis would strictly apply while interpreting the said expression which finds place in Explanation 3(b). 6.4 We find that Section 32(1)(ii) 'Goodwill of a Business or Profession' has been specifically excluded from the definition of assets on which depreciation shall be calculated. Explanation

DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Mumbai vs. Yola Stays Limited, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1252/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Swapnil Chaudhary, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Hirani (Virtually
Section 250Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

circumstances of the case, the Ld. CITIA) erred in allowing the depreciation of Rs. 3,20,99,500/ on goodwill under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as goodwill related to land and does not qualify for depreciation as an intangible asset." 2. "On the facts ... circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in interpreting the provisions of Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in light of the Supreme Court ruling in CIT v/s Smif Securities Ltd. (348 ITR 302), which is distinguishable from the present case

Maxxis Rubber India Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1129/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 32(1)

depreciation of Rs.156,00,22,181/- was carried forward to be claimed in assessment year 2018-19 as per the third proviso to section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. A working of the total depreciation charged during the year under consideration is tabulated as under:- Block of assets Plant ... year under consideration. In this regard, we hold that the aforesaid method of computation provided by the Pr. CIT is not correct as Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act provides that depreciation has to be charged on the written down value of any block of assets

The Acti, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Nirma Limited, Ahmedabad

ITA 1437/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.1412 & 1413/Ahd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: (2015-2016 & 2016-17) Nirma Limited, Nirma House, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. (Gujarat) बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad. स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacn5350K आयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.1436-1437/Ahd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : (2015-16 & 2016-17) The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad. Nirma Limited, बनाम / V/S. Nirma House, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. (Gujarat) स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacn5350K & C.O Nos.11-12/Ahd/2020 In आयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.1436-1437/Ahd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : (2015-16 & 2016-17) Nirma Limited, Nirma House, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. (Gujarat) The Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम/ V/S. Income Tax/The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad. स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacn5350K अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी / (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, withFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

form of marketing rights which are in the capital field. He therefore treated the registration rights as intangible assets within the meaning of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, held the expenditure to be capital in nature, and disallowed the claim of ITA Nos.1412-1413/Ahd/2019 with others Nirma Limited ... assets taken over and the liabilities assumed under the approved scheme of amalgamation and being an intangible asset within the meaning of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, depreciation thereon was allowable. ITA Nos.1412-1413/Ahd/2019 with others Nirma Limited Vs. DCIT Assessment Years

The Acti, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Nirma Limited, Ahmedabad

ITA 1436/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.1412 & 1413/Ahd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: (2015-2016 & 2016-17) Nirma Limited, Nirma House, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. (Gujarat) बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad. स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacn5350K आयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.1436-1437/Ahd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : (2015-16 & 2016-17) The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad. Nirma Limited, बनाम / V/S. Nirma House, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. (Gujarat) स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacn5350K & C.O Nos.11-12/Ahd/2020 In आयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.1436-1437/Ahd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : (2015-16 & 2016-17) Nirma Limited, Nirma House, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. (Gujarat) The Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम/ V/S. Income Tax/The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad. स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacn5350K अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी / (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, withFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

form of marketing rights which are in the capital field. He therefore treated the registration rights as intangible assets within the meaning of Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, held the expenditure to be capital in nature, and disallowed the claim of 18 ITA Nos.1412-1413/Ahd/2019 with others Nirma Limited ... assets taken over and the liabilities assumed under the approved scheme of amalgamation and being an intangible asset within the meaning of Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, depreciation thereon was allowable. 27 ITA Nos.1412-1413/Ahd/2019 with others Nirma Limited Vs. DCIT Assessment Years

Nirma Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dcti, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 1413/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.1412 & 1413/Ahd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: (2015-2016 & 2016-17) Nirma Limited, Nirma House, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. (Gujarat) बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad. स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacn5350K आयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.1436-1437/Ahd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : (2015-16 & 2016-17) The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad. Nirma Limited, बनाम / V/S. Nirma House, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. (Gujarat) स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacn5350K & C.O Nos.11-12/Ahd/2020 In आयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.1436-1437/Ahd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : (2015-16 & 2016-17) Nirma Limited, Nirma House, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. (Gujarat) The Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम/ V/S. Income Tax/The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad. स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacn5350K अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी / (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, withFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

form of marketing rights which are in the capital field. He therefore treated the registration rights as intangible assets within the meaning of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, held the expenditure to be capital in nature, and disallowed the claim of ITA Nos.1412-1413/Ahd/2019 with others Nirma Limited ... assets taken over and the liabilities assumed under the approved scheme of amalgamation and being an intangible asset within the meaning of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, depreciation thereon was allowable. ITA Nos.1412-1413/Ahd/2019 with others Nirma Limited Vs. DCIT Assessment Years

Nirma Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dcti, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 1412/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.1412 & 1413/Ahd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: (2015-2016 & 2016-17) Nirma Limited, Nirma House, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. (Gujarat) The Deputy Commissioner बनाम / Of Income Tax, V/S. Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad. स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacn5350K आयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.1436-1437/Ahd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : (2015-16 & 2016-17) The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad. Nirma Limited, बनाम / Nirma House, V/S. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. (Gujarat) स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacn5350K & C.O Nos.11-12/Ahd/2020 In आयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.1436-1437/Ahd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : (2015-16 & 2016-17) Nirma Limited, Nirma House, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. (Gujarat) The Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम/ V/S. Income Tax/The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad. स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacn5350K अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी / (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, withFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

form of marketing rights which are in the capital field. He therefore treated the registration rights as intangible assets within the meaning of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, held the expenditure to be capital in nature, and disallowed the claim of revenue deduction. However, the AO allowed depreciation ... assets taken over and the liabilities assumed under the approved scheme of amalgamation and being an intangible asset within the meaning of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, depreciation thereon was allowable. 47. The Assessing Officer, however, disallowed the claim for both the years following the stand taken

JCIT(OSD), Cir011(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Philips Carbon Black Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 234/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.234/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Jcit(Osd), Circle-11(1), Kolkata........................…...........................……….……Appellant Vs. M/S Philips Carbon Black Ltd.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Duncan House, 31 Netaji Subhas Road, Kol-1. [Pan: Aabcp5762E] Appearances By: Shri Praveen Kishore, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 30, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 29Th, 2025 Order Per Rajesh Kumar:

Section 144CSection 250Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80Section 80I

less than 180 days. The assessee has claimed 50% of the depreciation in consonance with second proviso to section 32(1)(ii) of Act. Accordingly we are inclined to uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A) by dismissing the ground no. 3 of revenue.” Respectfully following the same, we hold

Tigre Sas Liquors India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-25(1), New Delhi

Accordingly, the ground no. 3 is allowed

ITA 7969/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay, Accoutant Member

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Sh. Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA &
Section 250Section 37

loss and further the assesse had also incurred Rs.6,37,058/- towards label registration charges for the same brand. In fact as per Section 32(1)(ii) expenditure for trade-mark /copy right, license, franchise are to be treated as capital in nature. Therefore, we do not find any reason ... creation of such intangibles are to be capitalized and accordingly, the asset so created is eligible for depreciation, under the provisions of section 32(1)(ii) hence, the AO allowed the depreciation of 25% on such intangible assets, disallowed the balance expenditure, thereby making an addition of Rs.79

Tigre Sas Liquors India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-25(1), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stand Partly

ITA 7968/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay, Accoutant Member & Tigre Sas Liquors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-25(1), 406, 4Th Floor, Elegance New Delhi Tower, Jasola, New Delhi – 25, (Pan: Aaect2925Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Vinod Kumar Bindal, Ca & Ms. Rinky Sharma, Itp & Sh. Anmol Jha, Adv. Respondent By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 19.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.08.2025 Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, SR. DR
Section 250Section 37

further the assesse had also incurred Rs. 6,37,058/- towards label registration charges for the same brand. In fact as per Section 32(1)(ii) expenditure for trade-mark /copy right, license, franchise are to be treated as capital in nature. Therefore, we do not find any reason ... creation of such intangibles are to be capitalized and accordingly, the asset so created is eligible for depreciation, under the provisions of section 32(1)(ii) hence, the AO allowed the depreciation of 25% on such intangible assets, disallowed the balance expenditure, thereby making an addition

ACIT, Circle-3(2), New Delhi vs. Asian Consolidated Inds.Ltd), Rewari

In the result, all the 03 appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 7501/DEL/2018[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay, Accoutant Member Ita No. 6218/Del/2017 (Asstt. Year 1994-95) & Dcit, Circle-3(2), New Delhi Vs. M/S Asian Consolidated Industries Ltd., 96Th Mile Stone, Delhi-Jaipur Highway, Village-Bawal, Distt.- Rewari, Haryana (Pan: Aaaca5887A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ayush Garg, Ca Department By : Ms. Monika Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.08.2025 Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ayush Garg, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 264

account of such kegs, depreciation at the rate of 100% has been claimed by the assesssee in accordance with the first proviso to Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. which reads as under: "Provided that where the actual cost of any machinery or plant does not exceed five thousand

DCIT, Circle-3(2), New Delhi vs. Asian Consolidated Inds.Ltd), Rewari

In the result, all the 03 appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 4514/DEL/2018[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay, Accoutant Member Ita No. 6218/Del/2017 (Asstt. Year 1994-95) & Dcit, Circle-3(2), New Delhi Vs. M/S Asian Consolidated Industries Ltd., 96Th Mile Stone, Delhi-Jaipur Highway, Village-Bawal, Distt.- Rewari, Haryana (Pan: Aaaca5887A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ayush Garg, Ca Department By : Ms. Monika Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.08.2025 Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ayush Garg, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 264

account of such kegs, depreciation at the rate of 100% has been claimed by the assesssee in accordance with the first proviso to Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. which reads as under: "Provided that where the actual cost of any machinery or plant does not exceed five thousand

DCIT, Circle-3(2), New Delhi vs. Asian Consolidated Inds.Ltd), Rewari

In the result, all the 03 appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 6218/DEL/2017[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 1994-95

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay, Accoutant Member Ita No. 6218/Del/2017 (Asstt. Year 1994-95) & Dcit, Circle-3(2), New Delhi Vs. M/S Asian Consolidated Industries Ltd., 96Th Mile Stone, Delhi-Jaipur Highway, Village-Bawal, Distt.- Rewari, Haryana (Pan: Aaaca5887A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ayush Garg, Ca Department By : Ms. Monika Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.08.2025 Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ayush Garg, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 264

account of such kegs, depreciation at the rate of 100% has been claimed by the assesssee in accordance with the first proviso to Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. which reads as under: "Provided that where the actual cost of any machinery or plant does not exceed five thousand

ACIT, Circle-1(1), Rajkot vs. Gandhi Reality (India) Private Limited, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 110/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, Ld. CIT. (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 230

accounts and accordingly, in the return of income, the Assessee based on the report from the independent valuer, claimed depreciation at 25% under section 32(1)(ii); Dismisses Revenue's submission that the amount of goodwill being merely the difference between the purchase consideration and the net assets acquired ... financial statement pursuant to the amalgamation, in accordance of AS-14, the Assessee is entitled to claim depreciation on the same under section 32(1)(ii), by relying on SC judgment in Smifs Securities Ltd.; Thus, allows Assessee's appeal.” (3). In the case of PCIT Vs. Eltek

Novateur Electrical and Digital Systems Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 944/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Tiwari and Shri Lekh Mehta, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 92CSection 92C(2)

no.2 along with its sub- grounds, we note that goodwill per se is an intangible asset within the meaning of explanation 3 to section 32(1)(ii) and is thus eligible for depreciation. We draw our force from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SMIFS