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

DCIT 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Blue Star Electro Mechanical Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 252/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.252/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit 1(1)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Blue Star Electro 579, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Mechanical Ltd. Vs. Road, Mumbai-400020. Kasturi Building, Mohan T. Advani Chowk, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecb1558M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria (Sr Ar) Assessee By: Shri Soumen Adak & Ashish Jhawar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 30.09.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -2, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012- 13. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - "1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld Cit(A) Erred Was Justified In Holding That Rights Acquired For Acquisition Of Customer Contracts Falls Within The Expression "Any Other Business A.Y.2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Soumen Adak & AshishFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria (Sr AR)
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 32

Exedy India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT OSD(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 1443/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1443/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Exedy India Ltd. (Earlier बिधम/ Dcit Osd(1), Aayakar Known As Ceekay Daikin Bhavan Mumbai-400020. Vs. Ltd. Nkm Intl. House, 4Th Floor, 178 B.M. Chinai Marg. Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaca0200D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri V. Justin ( Dr) Assessee By: Shri H.N. Motiwalla सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 31.12.2015 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The Ay. 2007- 08. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - 1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Confirming The C Of Assessing Officer Levying Penalty Of Rs,9,43,550/- Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The Assessment Year 2007-And Rejecting The Appeal Of The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri H.N. MotiwallaFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin ( DR)
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)