← All Phrases

“Section 32(1)(a)”

Section References (mined)Section 32Section 32(1)(a)12 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 32(1)(a) is CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd. (348 ITR 302), cited in 540 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 32(1)(a)

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.

Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. CIT
228 ITR 253 · 1997 · Supreme Court
429
citing judgments

A subsidy is treated as a revenue receipt if the assessee is free to use the money in its business as it likes and is not obligated to spend it for a specific capital purpose, such as acquiring assets or repaying loans.

Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT
116 ITR 1 · 1979 · Supreme Court
409
citing judgments

A gain arising from the cancellation of a forward exchange contract entered into for the acquisition of a capital asset constitutes a capital receipt. Income-tax liability for such transactions is determined by the specific provisions of the Income Tax Act, independent of the accounting treatment in the books of account.

Vijaya Bank v. CIT
323 ITR 166 · 2010 · Supreme Court
392
citing judgments

A provision for bad and doubtful debts debited to the profit and loss account and reduced from advances on the balance sheet constitutes a write-off for deduction purposes. This is true even if individual debtor accounts are not closed.

CIT v. Bokaro Steel Ltd.
236 ITR 315 · 1999 · Supreme Court
370
citing judgments

Interest earned during the pre-commencement period of a project, on advances made to contractors or on unutilized borrowed funds, if inextricably linked to the setting up of the plant, constitutes a capital receipt. Such interest is not taxable as income but can be reduced from the capital work-in-progress.

Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT
196 ITR 188 · 1992 · Supreme Court
289
citing judgments

Provisions in taxing statutes that grant incentives, concessions, or exemptions for promoting economic growth and industrialization must be interpreted liberally and purposively. Any restrictions placed on such provisions should also be construed reasonably to advance their objective, not frustrate it.

ICDS Ltd. v. CIT
350 ITR 527 · 2013 · Supreme Court
280
citing judgments

An assessee engaged in the business of hire purchase or leasing, being the lessor, is entitled to claim depreciation on assets leased out, even if the assets are registered in the name of the lessee and used by the lessee.

Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. CIT
177 ITR 377 · 1989 · Supreme Court
275
citing judgments

Expenditure that provides a commercial advantage of an enduring nature may still be classified as revenue expenditure if its purpose is to facilitate existing trading operations, improve business efficiency, or upgrade existing products, depending on the specific context and objective.

Judgments citing Section 32(1)(a)

Srf Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 1, Ltu, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6252/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2015-16] Srf Limited, Vs Acit, The Galleria, Dlf Mayur Vihar, Circle-1, Ltu, Unit No.236 & 237, Second Floor, New Delhi. Mayur Place, Noida Link Road, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I Extn., Delhi-110091. Pan-Aaacs0206P Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Pradeep Dinodia, Ca, Shri R.K.Kapoor, Adv. & Shri Harish Dhamija, Adv. Respondent By Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 26.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20.11.2023 Order

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234CSection 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 35

32(1)(a) is of Rs.38,20,21,814/- (Rs. 191,01,09,072/- x 20% = Rs 38,20,21,814/-). As per section 32(1)(iia), in the case any new machinery or plant which has been acquired and installed after 31 March 2005 by any assessee engaged

Navin Flurine International, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 7(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is fully dismissed

ITA 6532/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Sinha, DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 35Section 41(1)

pressed, hence, rejected. Navin Fluorine International Ltd. 18. Ground No.4 pertains to additional depreciation of Rs. 1,54,14,557/- under section 32(1)(iia) being the balance additional depreciation on new Plant & Machinery which were put to use for less than 180 days. 19. Relevant extracts of the findings ... period of less than 180 days in the proceeding previous year to Assessment Year 2012-13 in terms of proviso to Section 32(1) of the Act. The balance 50% of additional depreciation on such plant and machinery which has not been allowed in the preceding previous year i.e. Assessment

DCIT Cent. Cir. 5(2), Mumbai vs. Ipca Laboratories Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 5227/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR
Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

assets acquired and installed during the FY 2006-07 (immediately preceding FY to the current FY under consideration) ignoring the express provisions of section 32(1)(iia) of the Act which specifically stats that additional depreciation shall be allowed only on assets acquired and installed during the previous year ... Income tax (Appeals). 044. The facts show that the assessee has acquired certain assets, which were entitled for additional depreciation according to Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act in the second half of the immediately preceding year. As the assessee has put to use those assets for less than

Ipca Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 3811/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR
Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

assets acquired and installed during the FY 2006-07 (immediately preceding FY to the current FY under consideration) ignoring the express provisions of section 32(1)(iia) of the Act which specifically stats that additional depreciation shall be allowed only on assets acquired and installed during the previous year ... Income tax (Appeals). 044. The facts show that the assessee has acquired certain assets, which were entitled for additional depreciation according to Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act in the second half of the immediately preceding year. As the assessee has put to use those assets for less than

Asst CIT (Ltu) 1, Mumbai vs. Ipca Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 3691/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR
Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

assets acquired and installed during the FY 2006-07 (immediately preceding FY to the current FY under consideration) ignoring the express provisions of section 32(1)(iia) of the Act which specifically stats that additional depreciation shall be allowed only on assets acquired and installed during the previous year ... Income tax (Appeals). 044. The facts show that the assessee has acquired certain assets, which were entitled for additional depreciation according to Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act in the second half of the immediately preceding year. As the assessee has put to use those assets for less than

Ipca Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 3597/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR
Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

assets acquired and installed during the FY 2006-07 (immediately preceding FY to the current FY under consideration) ignoring the express provisions of section 32(1)(iia) of the Act which specifically stats that additional depreciation shall be allowed only on assets acquired and installed during the previous year ... Income tax (Appeals). 044. The facts show that the assessee has acquired certain assets, which were entitled for additional depreciation according to Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act in the second half of the immediately preceding year. As the assessee has put to use those assets for less than

DCIT (Ltu) 1, Mumbai vs. Ipca Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 2815/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR
Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

assets acquired and installed during the FY 2006-07 (immediately preceding FY to the current FY under consideration) ignoring the express provisions of section 32(1)(iia) of the Act which specifically stats that additional depreciation shall be allowed only on assets acquired and installed during the previous year ... Income tax (Appeals). 044. The facts show that the assessee has acquired certain assets, which were entitled for additional depreciation according to Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act in the second half of the immediately preceding year. As the assessee has put to use those assets for less than

Ipca Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 2493/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR
Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

assets acquired and installed during the FY 2006-07 (immediately preceding FY to the current FY under consideration) ignoring the express provisions of section 32(1)(iia) of the Act which specifically stats that additional depreciation shall be allowed only on assets acquired and installed during the previous year ... Income tax (Appeals). 044. The facts show that the assessee has acquired certain assets, which were entitled for additional depreciation according to Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act in the second half of the immediately preceding year. As the assessee has put to use those assets for less than

Ipca Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 3267/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR
Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

assets acquired and installed during the FY 2006-07 (immediately preceding FY to the current FY under consideration) ignoring the express provisions of section 32(1)(iia) of the Act which specifically stats that additional depreciation shall be allowed only on assets acquired and installed during the previous year ... Income tax (Appeals). 044. The facts show that the assessee has acquired certain assets, which were entitled for additional depreciation according to Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act in the second half of the immediately preceding year. As the assessee has put to use those assets for less than

Ipca Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT (Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 8120/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR
Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

assets acquired and installed during the FY 2006-07 (immediately preceding FY to the current FY under consideration) ignoring the express provisions of section 32(1)(iia) of the Act which specifically stats that additional depreciation shall be allowed only on assets acquired and installed during the previous year ... Income tax (Appeals). 044. The facts show that the assessee has acquired certain assets, which were entitled for additional depreciation according to Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act in the second half of the immediately preceding year. As the assessee has put to use those assets for less than

Ipca Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 8084/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR
Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

assets acquired and installed during the FY 2006-07 (immediately preceding FY to the current FY under consideration) ignoring the express provisions of section 32(1)(iia) of the Act which specifically stats that additional depreciation shall be allowed only on assets acquired and installed during the previous year ... Income tax (Appeals). 044. The facts show that the assessee has acquired certain assets, which were entitled for additional depreciation according to Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act in the second half of the immediately preceding year. As the assessee has put to use those assets for less than

ACIT Cen Cir 13, Mumbai vs. Ipca Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 7511/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR
Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

assets acquired and installed during the FY 2006-07 (immediately preceding FY to the current FY under consideration) ignoring the express provisions of section 32(1)(iia) of the Act which specifically stats that additional depreciation shall be allowed only on assets acquired and installed during the previous year ... Income tax (Appeals). 044. The facts show that the assessee has acquired certain assets, which were entitled for additional depreciation according to Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act in the second half of the immediately preceding year. As the assessee has put to use those assets for less than