Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.33

Section 32(1)(ii) falls under section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 33 (Deduction for depreciation) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 33 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 32(1)(ii) is CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd. (348 ITR 302), cited in 540 of the 565 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

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.

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. 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.

Aztec Software & Technologies Services Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT
107 ITD 141 · 2007 · ITAT
90
citing judgments

OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines can be referred to for resolving transfer pricing disputes in India, even though India is not an OECD member, provided they are consistent with Indian statutory regulations. Availability of exemption under Section 10A does not bar the applicability of Section 92C and 92CA.

ACIT v. Progressive Constructions Ltd.
92 Taxmann.com 104 · 2018 · ITAT
63
citing judgments

Rights acquired under a concession agreement for highway construction, which generate revenue through toll collections, constitute an 'intangible asset' under section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, eligible for depreciation, typically at 25%. This includes claiming depreciation on the opening Written Down Value (WDV) for such highway projects.

Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. v. DCIT
41 Taxmann.com 120 · 2014 · High Court
58
citing judgments

A non-compete fee paid as part of a business acquisition or transaction constitutes an intangible asset, eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act.

CIT v. Radico Khaitan Ltd.
274 ITR 354 · 2005 · High Court
56
citing judgments

Where an assessee has mixed funds (borrowed and interest-free) and makes interest-free advances, it is presumed that such advances are made from interest-free funds if sufficient interest-free funds are available. This principle guides the disallowance of interest on borrowed capital under Section 36(1)(iii) if funds are diverted for non-business purposes without business expediency.

Judgments on Section 32(1)(ii)

Torrent Energy Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 1562/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1562/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2011-12 ) बनाम/ Torrent Energy Ltd. The Ito Torrent House Ward-8(1) Vs. Nr.Dinesh Hall Ahmedabad Ashram Road, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacct 8570 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.N. Soparkar & Shri Parikh Shah, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri G.C. Daxini, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing 28/01/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 19/03/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–8, Ahmedabad [Cit(A) In Short] Vide Appeal No.Cit(A)-Xiv/516/13-14 Dated 12.03.2015 Arising In The Assessment Order Passed Under S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Here-In-After Referred To As "The Act") Dated 21/02/2014 Relevant To Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. In Law & In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case, The Learned Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Dismissing Ground No. 1 Of The Appellant'S Appeal Before Him Challenging The Very Validity Of The Assessment Order Torrent Energy Ltd. Vs. Ito Asst.Year - 2011-12 Impugned Before Him, On The Ground That It Was General In Nature & Did Not Require Adjudication By Him.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar &For Respondent: Shri G.C. Daxini, Sr.DR
Section 32(1)

Kamlesh S. Patil, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

ITA 1121/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1121/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बिाम/ Kamlesh S. Patil Ito 24(2)(3) Ockam Systems Room No. 609,6Th Floor, 1001, 10Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, V. Quantum Tower, Lalbaug, Mumbai Rambaug Lane 400012 Nadiyadwada Colony 2 Malad(West) Mumbai-400064 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aadpp9859R (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Ajay R. Singh (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 1121/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 29.12.2016 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-36/It-117/Ito-24(2)(3)/2015-16, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-36, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year(Ay) 2012-13, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 28.03.2015 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer

For Appellant: Shri. Ajay R. Singh (AR)For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)