Section 32(1) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.33

Section 32(1) 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) is CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd. (348 ITR 302), cited in 540 of the 386 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 32(1)

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. 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.

CIT v. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd.
341 ITR 467 · 2012 · High Court
108
citing judgments

The Legislature abolished terminal depreciation under section 32(1)(iii) and the taxing of balancing charge under section 41(2), replacing these provisions with the requirement to reduce sale proceeds of depreciable assets from the block of assets.

CIT v. Shri T.P. Textiles (P.) Ltd.
394 ITR 483 · 2017 · High Court
73
citing judgments

An assessee is entitled to claim the balance 10% of additional depreciation in the succeeding assessment year if the new plant and machinery were put to use for less than 180 days in the previous year.

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.

General Motors India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT
25 Taxmann.com 364 · 2012 · High Court
46
citing judgments

Section 44AB (tax audit) does not apply where the assessee is not engaged in a business or profession and consequently has no income under the head 'profits and gains from business or profession'.

Prolifics Corpn. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT
68 SOT 104 · 2015 · ITAT
45
citing judgments
Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT
122 Taxmann.com 40 · 2020 · Reported
41
citing judgments

Where goodwill is recorded pursuant to a merger based on purchase consideration determined by a valuation report, and no goodwill is transferred from the predecessor's books, the fifth proviso to section 32(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is not applicable, and thus depreciation on such goodwill is not allowable.

United Breweries Ltd. v. ACIT
76 Taxmann.com 103 · 2016 · ITAT
41
citing judgments

Depreciation on goodwill arising from amalgamation is not admissible to the amalgamated company if no goodwill was admitted in the hands of the amalgamating company, applying Explanation 7 to Section 43(1) and the Sixth Proviso to Section 32(1)(ii).

CIT v. Nedungadi
264 ITR 545 · 2003 · High Court
40
citing judgments

Securities held by a bank are considered stock-in-trade, and any notional loss arising from their valuation at the year-end is allowable as a deduction.

Judgments on Section 32(1)

DCIT(It)-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Penford Israel Ltd.(India Branch), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2697/MUM/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2697/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Dy. Cit (International Taxation)-3(3)(2), M/S. Penford Israel Ltd. (India बनाम/ Room No. 1727, 17Th Floor, Branch) Air India Building, Nariman Point, 1102, Prasad Chamber, Opera Vs. Mumbai-400 021 House, Mumbai-400 004 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcp 7258 D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Rajat Mittal ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Dixit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 13.02.2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 01.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 04.01.2016 & Pertains To The Assessment Year 2004- 05. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: 1. " Whether On Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Holding That Penalty U/S. 271(L)(C) Is Not Attracted With Reference To Addition/Disallowance Made Under Normal Provisions ". 2. "Whether On Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified That The Assessing Officer Has Erred In Levying Penalty U/S.

For Appellant: Shri Rajat MittalFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Dixit
Section 2Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)