Section 32 of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.33

Section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 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 is CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd. (348 ITR 302), cited in 540 of the 2,762 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 32

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.

Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. v. CIT
373 ITR 673 · 2015 · Supreme Court
381
citing judgments

Income from immovable property, such as unsold flats or shops, held by an assessee as stock-in-trade in their business of acquiring and holding properties is taxable as 'business income' and not 'income from house property'. Consequently, notional annual letting value under Section 23 cannot be attributed to such stock-in-trade.

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.

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.

Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT
239 ITR 775 · 1999 · Supreme Court
215
citing judgments

For income tax purposes, the 'owner' of a property is the person who is entitled to receive income in their own right, bears the risks incidental to ownership, and utilizes the asset, even if the sale deed is not formally registered. This beneficial ownership is sufficient for claiming depreciation or capital gains exemption under relevant sections.

CIT v. Infosys Technologies Ltd.
341 ITR 293 · 2012 · High Court
205
citing judgments

A Commissioner can revise an assessment order under Section 263 if it is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. This includes cases where the Assessing Officer fails to make further inquiries before accepting the assessee's statements in the return.

Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT
27 ITR 34 · 1955 · Supreme Court
174
citing judgments

The Supreme Court established the foundational test for distinguishing between capital and revenue expenditure, holding that the aim and object of the expenditure and whether it brings into existence an asset or an advantage of an enduring nature determines its character, irrespective of the payment method. An advantage lasting five years or more can be considered enduring.

CIT v. P.J. Chemicals Ltd.
210 ITR 830 · 1994 · Supreme Court
158
citing judgments

This Supreme Court decision clarifies the conditions under which a capital subsidy received by an assessee should be reduced from the 'actual cost' of an asset for computing depreciation under Section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act, depending on whether the subsidy directly meets the cost of the asset.

Judgments on Section 32

ITO, Ward-4(2), Bhubaneswar vs. Tribal Development Co-Operative Corporation of Odisha Limited, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 479/CTK/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Sept 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.479/Ctk/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Ito, Ward-4(2), Bhubaneswar Vs. Tribal Development Co- Operative Corporation Of Odisha Limited, Rupali Square, Bhoi Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751002 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaat 3642 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Jcitdr "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Miss Swati Kejriwal, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 12/09/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 27/09/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A), Bhubaneswar, Dated 30.08.2017, Passed In I.T.Appeal No.0218/2016-17 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. The Order Of The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Is Erroneous Both In Facts & In Law. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Having Regard To The Reasons Stated By The Assessing Officer(Ao) In Para (4.0) Of The Assessment Order, The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Is Not Justified In Deleting The Disallowance Of Claim Of Brought Forward Loss Of Rs.16758010/- Made By The Ao In The Assessment. 3. Having Regard To The Reasons Stated By The Ao In Para 5.0 Of The Assessment Order & In Absence Of Any Opportunity Given To The Ao For Verifying The Claim/Matter W.R.T., The Submissions Made By The Assessee During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Is Not Justified In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs.60,40,492/- Made

For Appellant: Miss Swati Kejriwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, JCITDR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

Dcitcc 3(2) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Hrishikesh D. Pai, Mumbai

In the result , the appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

ITA 2766/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2766/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बिाम/ Dcit, Cc 3(2) Cen Rg 3 Shri Hrishikesh D. Pai, R.No. 1913, 19Th Floor, C/O M/S. Pregnancy Air India Building, Advice & Services, V. Nariman Point, 304, Pearl Centre, Mumbai S.B. Marg, Dadar, Mumbai 400028 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabpp2139C (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh, Dr Assessee By : Shri. Vijay Mehta सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement :26.09.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 2766/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 05.12.2016 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2012-13, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2015 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2012-13. I.T.A. No.2766/Mum/2017

For Appellant: Shri. Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 253(3)Section 50Section 54FSection 69B