Section 32AC of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 32AC is Tata Consultancy Services v. State of Andhra Pradesh (271 ITR 401), cited in 231 of the 83 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 32AC

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.

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.

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.

Binani Cements Ltd. v. CIT
380 ITR 116 · 2016 · High Court
60
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred in respect of abandoned cell towers is an allowable business expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, especially when no new business was being set up by the assessee.

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. ACIT
68 Taxmann.com 322 · 2016 · High Court
55
citing judgments

When benchmarking export transactions, the Associated Enterprise (AE) can be considered the tested party if it possesses the least complex functional analysis. The Assessing Officer's acceptance of a methodology in prior years can also support its use.

CIT v. Graphite India Ltd.
221 ITR 420 · 1996 · High Court
52
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred for the expansion of an existing business is revenue in nature and allowable as a deduction if it does not create a new asset. Accounting entries in books of accounts do not solely determine the allowability of an expenditure for income tax purposes.

CIT v. Ajaib Singh & Co.
253 ITR 630 · 2002 · High Court
49
citing judgments

The mere disallowance of an expenditure claimed by the assessee does not automatically mean that inaccurate particulars of income were furnished, and penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed solely on this ground. There must be an independent finding of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, typically a conscious act.

CIT v. VTM Ltd.
319 ITR 336 · 2009 · High Court
49
citing judgments

An assessee engaged in the manufacture or production of an article or thing is entitled to additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) for new machinery or plant, such as a windmill for power generation, even if it is not directly used in the primary manufacturing activity.

CIT v. Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd.
259 CTR 383 · 2013 · High Court
35
citing judgments

A mere disallowance of a claim by the Assessing Officer does not automatically amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, and penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied solely on this basis.

Judgments on Section 32AC

Ahlcon Parenterals (India) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr, . CIT - 3, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 769/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2015-16 Ahlcon Parenterals (India) Ltd., Vs Pr. Cit-3, Plot No.30/30-E, Shivaji Marg, New Delhi. 2Nd Floor, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi – 110 015. Pan: Aaaca1112C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ketan Vaid, Ca Revenue By : Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.05.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.03.2021 Passed By The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Delhi-3 (Hereinafter Referred As The Ld. Pcit) In Revision No.Pcit (Central), Delhi-3/Revision- 263/100000193785/2021 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’), By The Dcit, Central Circle-31, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao). 2. Heard & Perused The Record. At The Outset, The Ld.Ar Has Pointed Out That There Was A Delay In Filing The Appeal. The Ld. Ar Has Submitted That The Period Of Delay Stands Covered By The Hon’Ble Supreme Court Directions In Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 Of 2020 Wherein Due To Covid-19 Pandemic, The Date Of Filing Of The Appeal Was Extended. The Ld. Dr Could Not Dispute This. Accordingly, The Application Is Allowed.

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Vaid, CAFor Respondent: Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 32

ACIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai vs. M/S. Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee as well as the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 946/CHNY/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.939/Chny/2022 िनधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of 1212, Trichy Road, Income Tax, Coimbatore – 641 018. Vs. Corporate Circle-1, [Pan: Aaacb-8933-G] Coimbatore. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.946/Chny/2022 िनधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Asst. Commissioner Of Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd., Income Tax, 1212, Trichy Road, Central Circle-3(2), Vs. Coimbatore – 641 018. Chennai. [Pan: Aaacb-8933-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N. Senthil Kumar, Cit : 15.05.2023 सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manomohan Das, J.M: Aforesaid Two Appeals Nos. Ita/939/Chny/2022 & Ita 946/Chny/ 2022 Filed By Assessee & Department Respectively Arises Out Of The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 16, Chennai [Hereinafter “Cit(A)”] Dated 17-08-2022 For The

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Senthil Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 32ASection 4

Bannari Amman Sugars Limited, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee as well as the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 939/CHNY/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.939/Chny/2022 िनधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of 1212, Trichy Road, Income Tax, Coimbatore – 641 018. Vs. Corporate Circle-1, [Pan: Aaacb-8933-G] Coimbatore. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.946/Chny/2022 िनधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Asst. Commissioner Of Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd., Income Tax, 1212, Trichy Road, Central Circle-3(2), Vs. Coimbatore – 641 018. Chennai. [Pan: Aaacb-8933-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N. Senthil Kumar, Cit : 15.05.2023 सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manomohan Das, J.M: Aforesaid Two Appeals Nos. Ita/939/Chny/2022 & Ita 946/Chny/ 2022 Filed By Assessee & Department Respectively Arises Out Of The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 16, Chennai [Hereinafter “Cit(A)”] Dated 17-08-2022 For The

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Senthil Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 32ASection 4