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
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
