Section 32A of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 32A is CIT v. Sesa Goa Ltd. (271 ITR 331), cited in 92 of the 84 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 32A

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".

Aman Marble Industries (P.) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise
1 SCC 279 · 2005 · Supreme Court
18
citing judgments

The case clarified that activities like cutting marble blocks into slabs can constitute 'manufacture' for excise purposes, a principle relevant to understanding 'production' under Section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act, even if the earlier judgment did not explicitly interpret 'production'.

Department. 19. In CIT v. Sesa Goa Ltd.
13 SCC 548 · 2004 · Reported
10
citing judgments

The extraction and processing of iron ore, even if not amounting to the manufacture or production of an article or thing, can constitute 'production' for the purposes of claiming deductions under Section 80-IA and depreciation under Section 32-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

M/s. Puttur Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangalore
361 ITR 290 · 2014 · Reported
7
citing judgments
Similarly, in P Jayappan v. SK 26. Similarly, in P Jayappan Vs SK Perumal, First Income Tax Officer
149 ITR 696 · 1984 · Supreme Court
5
citing judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax-1, Mum v. Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd.
84 Taxmann.com 215 · 2017 · Supreme Court
4
citing judgments
Gaurav Jain v. Gaurav Jain v. NCLT, Mumbai
130 Taxmann.com 23 · 2021 · Reported
3
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 32A

Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore vs. Venkateswara Hatcheries (P) Ltd. Etc. Etc

CIVIL APPEAL No. 5066/1996Supreme Court24 Mar 1999

Bench: 3 Judges

Commr. of Income Tax, Bangalore vs. Venkateshwara Hatcheries

C.A. No.-005066-005066 - 1996Supreme Court24 Mar 1999
For Respondent: VENKATESWARA HATCHERIES (P) LTD
Section 256(2)Section 32ASection 32A(2)Section 43ASection 80J(4)(iii)Section 88J

Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka. Bangalore vs. M/S. Shaan Finance (P.) Ltd. Bangalore Etc

The appeals are dismissed with costs

CIVIL APPEAL No. 7077/1993Supreme Court20 Mar 1998

Bench: The High Court, It Was Held That The Assessees Were Entitled To Investment Allowance. On Appeal Before This Court It Was Contended By The Appellant That Investment Allowance Can Be Claimed By The Assessee Only In A Case Where The Assessee Is The Owner Of The Machinery & Also Uses The Machinery Himself & In Other Cases It Cannot Be Granted & That The Observations D E F In Cit V. Narang Dairy Products, 219 Itr 478 Wherein It Was Held That Availing The Benefit Of Development Rebate Not Only Should The Ownership Of G The Plant & Machinery Be With The Assessee But Also Its User By The Assessee For The Purpose Of His Business, Is Applicable In The Present Case. Dismissing The Appeals, The Court Held: 1.1. Section 32A(2)(B) Refers To The Uses To Which The Machinery H 367

Section 32ASection 32A(2)(b)

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Orissa vs. N.C. Budharaja & Company and Anr. Etc. Etc

The appeal is allowed

CIVIL APPEAL No. 4238/1983Supreme Court07 Sept 1993

Bench: 2 Judges

Section 32(2)(b)Section 32ASection 32A(2)Section 808Section 80HSection 84