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

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.33

Section 32(1)(iia) 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)(iia) is Vijaya Bank v. CIT (323 ITR 166), cited in 392 of the 553 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 32(1)(iia)

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. 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.

Tata Consultancy Services v. State of Andhra Pradesh
271 ITR 401 · 2004 · Supreme Court
231
citing judgments

The sale of 'canned software' in physical form is the sale of a copyrighted article and constitutes 'goods,' distinct from the underlying copyright. This case provides foundational principles for distinguishing copyrighted works from copyrighted articles and for what qualifies as 'production or manufacturing of goods or articles' under tax laws.

CIT v. N.C. Budharaja & Co.
204 ITR 412 · 1993 · Supreme Court
164
citing judgments

The word 'production' has a wider connotation than 'manufacture'; every manufacture is production, but not every production amounts to manufacture. 'Production' includes bringing into existence new goods, by-products, or inter-products through a process, which may or may not be manufacture.

CIT v. Faizan Shoes (P.) Ltd.
367 ITR 155 · 2014 · High Court
139
citing judgments

Disallowance under section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of tax at source on export agency commission paid to a non-resident does not apply if the non-resident's income is not taxable in India under section 9(1), such as when the agent operates outside India without a permanent establishment or business connection in India.

CIT v. Rittal India (P) Limited
380 ITR 423 · 2016 · High Court
121
citing judgments

Additional depreciation is allowable under section 32(1)(iia) for new machinery or plant even when put to use for less than 180 days, with the unabsorbed balance available for claim in the subsequent year.

Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. v. CIT
144 ITR 474 · 1983 · High Court
119
citing judgments

The Calcutta High Court held that a lump sum revenue expenditure, which is of a significant amount and provides benefits spread over several years, can be allowed as a deduction proportionately over the period of benefit. This approach prevents distortion of the profits of a single assessment year.

Autodesk India Pvt.Ltd. v. DCIT
96 Taxmann.com 263 · 2018 · ITAT
116
citing judgments

A high turnover criterion, such as above Rs. 200 crores, is a valid ground to exclude companies from the list of comparable companies in a transfer pricing analysis, as such companies are not comparable to those with significantly lower turnover.

CIT v. Sesa Goa Ltd.
271 ITR 331 · 2004 · Supreme Court
92
citing judgments

Extraction and processing of iron ore constitutes "production" for the purpose of claiming tax benefits like investment allowance under Section 32A and additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia), even if it does not amount to "manufacture".

CIT v. A. Gajapathy Naidu
53 ITR 114 · 1964 · Supreme Court
73
citing judgments

An Income Tax Officer assessing income must determine the assessee's system of accountancy and, for the mercantile system, ascertain when the right to receive the income legally accrued.

Judgments on Section 32(1)(iia)

Heidelberg Cement India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

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

ITA 2054/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12 Heidelberg Cement India Ltd., Vs Dcit, 9Th Floor, Tower-C, Circle-2, 3Rd Floor, Infinity Towers, Dlf Cyber City, Vanijya Nikunj, Gurgaon. Hsiidc Building, Udyog Vihar, Ph. V, Pan: Aabcm2359J Near Shankar Chowk, Nh-8, Gurgaon. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak Chopra, Advocate & Sh. Harpreet Singh Ajmani, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 1St February, 2016 Of The Cit(A)-1, Gurgaon, Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Grounds Of Appeal No. 1 & 1.1 Raised By The Read As Under:- “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law, In Confirming The Disallowance Made By The Ld. Ao, Amounting To Inr 87,12,690/-, On Account Of Additional Depreciation Claimed By The Appellant On New Plant & Machinery In Accordance With The Provisions Of Section 32(I)(Iia) Of The Act. 1.1 The Ld. Cit(A) / Ld. Ao Erred On Facts & In Law, In Considering Only The Nomenclature Of The Assets To Hold The Disallowance, Without Appreciating The Detailed Nature & Use Of The Assets.”

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)