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)

DCIT Corporate Circle 1, Coimbatore vs. Chiranjeevi Wind Energy Limited, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

ITA 2226/CHNY/2017[ 2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Dec 2018

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2226/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Chiranjeevi Wind Energy Ltd., Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1, Vs. 45/3A, Arts College Road Lane, Opp: 63-A, Race Course Road, Coimbatore. Bala Lodge, Coimbatore 641 018. [Pan:Aaacc8761H] (Appellant) (Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.12.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Coimbatore Dated 30.06.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Allowing The Claim Of Depreciation For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessing Officer Determined The Total Loss Of The Assessee At ₹.10,25,94,240/- While Completing The Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of 2

For Appellant: Shri R. Clement Ramesh KumarFor Respondent: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(iia)