← 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 CC 3(2), Central Range-3, Mumbai, Air India Building, Nariman Point vs. Aarti Durgs Limited, Sion (E)

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3070/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Nagar & Shri Vipul JainFor Respondent: Dr. K. R. Subash &
Section 139Section 14ASection 2(24)Section 250

purpose of business for a period of less than 180 days, that u/s.32(1)(iia), read with the second proviso to section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, for the AY. 2007-08, the assessee was granted benefit of 50% of the 20% of the amount of depreciation allowable. Dispute

International Hospital Ltd. (Before Amalgamation M/S Escorts Hospital and Research Centre Ltd), New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-8(3), New Delhi

The appeals are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 3390/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Ircon Soma Tollway (P) Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Ltd., B-4/45, Ground Floor, Income Tax, Range-4, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aabci4622C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri VK Aggarwal, AR & Shri HritikFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250(6)Section 263

Further, it is nowhere mentioned in the circular that it will apply from the date when expl. 3 to section 32(1)(ii) was inserted in the Act. Expl. 3 was inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998 w.e.f. 01/04/1999. Accordingly, even if it is presumed for a moment ... entitled to the claim of depreciation thereon. It is also pertinent to mention here that the 'intangible assets' eligible for depreciation in section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, are only those which are owned by the assessee and have been acquired after spending money. In the case

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(2), Delhi, I.P.Estate vs. Bureau Veritas Consumer Products Services(India) Pvt. Ltd., Lajpat Nagar

ITA 3158/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2013-14] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.63/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3157/Chny2017) [Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner Of Dalmiapuram, Income Tax, Circle-1, Tamilnadu-621651 Vs Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan- Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2014-15] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH

Manju Dudala, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 665/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri V. Siva Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Rs.37,79,15,242/- and on which the appellant company has claimed depreciation @ 25% applicable to an “Intangible Asset” as defined under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and debited an amount of Rs.9,44,78,811/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed depreciation on non-compete fee on the ground ... that the appellant company has failed to prove how the said claim is in accordance with section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and eligible for claiming depreciation @ 25% applicable to an intangible asset. The Assessing Officer had discussed the issue at length in light of definition of non-compete

ACIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Hinduja National Power Corporation Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

ITA 235/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.235/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) The Assistant M/S. Hinduja National Power Commissioner Of Income Vs. Corporation Ltd. Tax, Circle 2(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch2426D अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K. A. Sai Prasad, C.A. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr.

For Appellant: Shri K. A. Sai Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 32ASection 92C

were not included. In the absence of specific inclusion of power generating units into the purview of section 32AC, the benefits mentioned in section 32(1)(ii) cannot be extended to power generation companies. Therefore, the case laws relied upon by the assessee, which were rendered in the context ... ii), the power generating units were included to get the benefit of additional deprecation. It is referring to this position and provisions of section 32(1)(ii) only, theCourts in Damodar Valley Corporation and NTPC cases decided in the issue in favour of the assessee. 6.08 Now coming to section

Nakshatra Metals Private Limited, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 18(1), Delhi

The appeals are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1198/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Ircon Soma Tollway (P) Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Ltd., B-4/45, Ground Floor, Income Tax, Range-4, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aabci4622C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri VK Aggarwal, AR & Shri HritikFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250(6)Section 263

Further, it is nowhere mentioned in the circular that it will apply from the date when expl. 3 to section 32(1)(ii) was inserted in the Act. Expl. 3 was inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998 w.e.f. 01/04/1999. Accordingly, even if it is presumed for a moment ... entitled to the claim of depreciation thereon. It is also pertinent to mention here that the 'intangible assets' eligible for depreciation in section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, are only those which are owned by the assessee and have been acquired after spending money. In the case

Metro Tyres Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-5, New Delhi

ITA 4734/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 1031/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Metro Tyres Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 101, Jyoti Bhawan, Dr. Mukherjee Range-6, Nagar, Commercial Complex, New Delhi New Delhi-110009 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm3394A

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Jaya Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 1Section 14ASection 24Section 32(1)(ii)

alleged contention that non- compete fees does not fall under the purview of an intangible asset as defined under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 2. That the Learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the disallowance of Rs. 39,600/- being the deduction allowable under section ... seven years amounts to a depreciable intangible asset. As discussed earlier, each of the species of rights spelt-out in Section 32(1)(ii), i.e. know-how, patent, copyright, trademark, licence or franchise as or any other right of a similar kind which confers a business or commercial

M/S. Metro Tyres Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5966/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 1031/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Metro Tyres Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 101, Jyoti Bhawan, Dr. Mukherjee Range-6, Nagar, Commercial Complex, New Delhi New Delhi-110009 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm3394A

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Jaya Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 1Section 14ASection 24Section 32(1)(ii)

alleged contention that non- compete fees does not fall under the purview of an intangible asset as defined under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 2. That the Learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the disallowance of Rs. 39,600/- being the deduction allowable under section ... seven years amounts to a depreciable intangible asset. As discussed earlier, each of the species of rights spelt-out in Section 32(1)(ii), i.e. know-how, patent, copyright, trademark, licence or franchise as or any other right of a similar kind which confers a business or commercial

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Metro Tyres Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 418/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 1031/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Metro Tyres Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 101, Jyoti Bhawan, Dr. Mukherjee Range-6, Nagar, Commercial Complex, New Delhi New Delhi-110009 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm3394A

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Jaya Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 1Section 14ASection 24Section 32(1)(ii)

alleged contention that non- compete fees does not fall under the purview of an intangible asset as defined under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 2. That the Learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the disallowance of Rs. 39,600/- being the deduction allowable under section ... seven years amounts to a depreciable intangible asset. As discussed earlier, each of the species of rights spelt-out in Section 32(1)(ii), i.e. know-how, patent, copyright, trademark, licence or franchise as or any other right of a similar kind which confers a business or commercial

M/S Metro Tyres Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 379/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 1031/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Metro Tyres Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 101, Jyoti Bhawan, Dr. Mukherjee Range-6, Nagar, Commercial Complex, New Delhi New Delhi-110009 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm3394A

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Jaya Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 1Section 14ASection 24Section 32(1)(ii)

alleged contention that non- compete fees does not fall under the purview of an intangible asset as defined under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 2. That the Learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the disallowance of Rs. 39,600/- being the deduction allowable under section ... seven years amounts to a depreciable intangible asset. As discussed earlier, each of the species of rights spelt-out in Section 32(1)(ii), i.e. know-how, patent, copyright, trademark, licence or franchise as or any other right of a similar kind which confers a business or commercial

M/S Metro Tyres Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 378/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 1031/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Metro Tyres Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 101, Jyoti Bhawan, Dr. Mukherjee Range-6, Nagar, Commercial Complex, New Delhi New Delhi-110009 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm3394A

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Jaya Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 1Section 14ASection 24Section 32(1)(ii)

alleged contention that non- compete fees does not fall under the purview of an intangible asset as defined under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 2. That the Learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the disallowance of Rs. 39,600/- being the deduction allowable under section ... seven years amounts to a depreciable intangible asset. As discussed earlier, each of the species of rights spelt-out in Section 32(1)(ii), i.e. know-how, patent, copyright, trademark, licence or franchise as or any other right of a similar kind which confers a business or commercial

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Metro Tyres Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5354/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 1031/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Metro Tyres Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 101, Jyoti Bhawan, Dr. Mukherjee Range-6, Nagar, Commercial Complex, New Delhi New Delhi-110009 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm3394A

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Jaya Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 1Section 14ASection 24Section 32(1)(ii)

alleged contention that non- compete fees does not fall under the purview of an intangible asset as defined under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 2. That the Learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the disallowance of Rs. 39,600/- being the deduction allowable under section ... seven years amounts to a depreciable intangible asset. As discussed earlier, each of the species of rights spelt-out in Section 32(1)(ii), i.e. know-how, patent, copyright, trademark, licence or franchise as or any other right of a similar kind which confers a business or commercial

M/S. Metro Tyres Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5041/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 1031/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Metro Tyres Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 101, Jyoti Bhawan, Dr. Mukherjee Range-6, Nagar, Commercial Complex, New Delhi New Delhi-110009 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm3394A

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Jaya Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 1Section 14ASection 24Section 32(1)(ii)

alleged contention that non- compete fees does not fall under the purview of an intangible asset as defined under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 2. That the Learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the disallowance of Rs. 39,600/- being the deduction allowable under section ... seven years amounts to a depreciable intangible asset. As discussed earlier, each of the species of rights spelt-out in Section 32(1)(ii), i.e. know-how, patent, copyright, trademark, licence or franchise as or any other right of a similar kind which confers a business or commercial

M/S. Metro Tyres Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5039/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 1031/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Metro Tyres Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 101, Jyoti Bhawan, Dr. Mukherjee Range-6, Nagar, Commercial Complex, New Delhi New Delhi-110009 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm3394A

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Jaya Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 1Section 14ASection 24Section 32(1)(ii)

alleged contention that non- compete fees does not fall under the purview of an intangible asset as defined under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 2. That the Learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the disallowance of Rs. 39,600/- being the deduction allowable under section ... seven years amounts to a depreciable intangible asset. As discussed earlier, each of the species of rights spelt-out in Section 32(1)(ii), i.e. know-how, patent, copyright, trademark, licence or franchise as or any other right of a similar kind which confers a business or commercial

M/S Metro Tyres Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5767/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 1031/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Metro Tyres Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 101, Jyoti Bhawan, Dr. Mukherjee Range-6, Nagar, Commercial Complex, New Delhi New Delhi-110009 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm3394A

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Jaya Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 1Section 14ASection 24Section 32(1)(ii)

alleged contention that non- compete fees does not fall under the purview of an intangible asset as defined under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 2. That the Learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the disallowance of Rs. 39,600/- being the deduction allowable under section ... seven years amounts to a depreciable intangible asset. As discussed earlier, each of the species of rights spelt-out in Section 32(1)(ii), i.e. know-how, patent, copyright, trademark, licence or franchise as or any other right of a similar kind which confers a business or commercial

M/S. Metro Tyres Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2266/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 1031/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Metro Tyres Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 101, Jyoti Bhawan, Dr. Mukherjee Range-6, Nagar, Commercial Complex, New Delhi New Delhi-110009 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm3394A

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Jaya Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 1Section 14ASection 24Section 32(1)(ii)

alleged contention that non- compete fees does not fall under the purview of an intangible asset as defined under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 2. That the Learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the disallowance of Rs. 39,600/- being the deduction allowable under section ... seven years amounts to a depreciable intangible asset. As discussed earlier, each of the species of rights spelt-out in Section 32(1)(ii), i.e. know-how, patent, copyright, trademark, licence or franchise as or any other right of a similar kind which confers a business or commercial

M/S. Metro Tyres Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 1031/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 1031/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Metro Tyres Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 101, Jyoti Bhawan, Dr. Mukherjee Range-6, Nagar, Commercial Complex, New Delhi New Delhi-110009 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm3394A

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Jaya Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 1Section 14ASection 24Section 32(1)(ii)

alleged contention that non- compete fees does not fall under the purview of an intangible asset as defined under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 2. That the Learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the disallowance of Rs. 39,600/- being the deduction allowable under section ... seven years amounts to a depreciable intangible asset. As discussed earlier, each of the species of rights spelt-out in Section 32(1)(ii), i.e. know-how, patent, copyright, trademark, licence or franchise as or any other right of a similar kind which confers a business or commercial

Kribhco Infrastructure Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-14(2), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 5750/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usa.Yr. : 2014-15 Kribhco Infrastructure Vs. Acit, Circle 14(2), Ltd. New Delhi A-60, Kailash Colony, New Delhi – 48 (Pan: Aadck7285P) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. & Sh. TarunFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 32(1)(ii)

railway network under the concessionaire agreement to access railway terminals and develop, operate. The Assessee acquired the assets as per the provisions of section 32(1)(ii) Explanation 3(b) and claimed depreciation of a sum of Rs. 46143000/- as per the rates prescribed. The learned assessing officer allowed ... exclusive right to operate on Indian Railway tracks and is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation at 25% as per section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. The license provides an enduring benefit and is a valuable commercial right, thus qualifying for depreciation. Further, explanation 3 to section

Orion India Systems Private Limited, Mumbai Maharashtra vs. PCIT, Mumbai-Six Circle Fifteen (One)(One)

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1449/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Khevana GandhiFor Respondent: Mr. R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 50B(1)Section 92C

assets acquired by way of Slump Sale amounting to Rs.67,82,56,801/- as Goodwill and claimed depreciation @ 25% on such Goodwill under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. From the perusal of statutory notices issued during the assessment proceedings, forming part of the paper book, we find that

Dow Chemical International Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -14(1)(2), Mumbai

Appeal are allowed

ITA 5446/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri B R Baskaran: A.Y. : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Pranay GandhiFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 43(1)

account of the transferor/amalgamating company, same could not be allowed to the appellant. The Assessing Officer thus invoking the 6th proviso to Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short), disallowed the claim of depreciation on the intangible assets. 6. The learned CIT(A) concurred