PUNE SOLAPUR EXPRESSWAYS P.LTD,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-20(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 3326/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 November 2021AY 2013-1415 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee's right to collect toll is an intangible asset falling under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and is eligible for depreciation. The Tribunal also found that the assessee is the owner of the toll road for the purpose of claiming depreciation.

What were the facts?

The assessee company, engaged in developing and operating a toll road on a Build Operate Transfer (BOT) basis, claimed depreciation on the toll road as 'Plant & Machinery'. The Assessing Officer disallowed this claim, stating the assessee was not the owner and the right to collect toll was not an intangible asset under Section 32(1)(ii). The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision.

What were the issues?

Whether the right to collect toll on a BOT basis qualifies as an intangible asset for depreciation, and whether the assessee is considered the owner for depreciation purposes.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 32,Section 32(1)(ii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(4)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH : F : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R.K. PANDA & SHRI KULDIP SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CA
For Respondent: Shri Munesh Kumar, CIT, DR
Hearing: 27.10.2021Pronounced: 10.11.2021

PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 13th December, 2017 of the CIT(A)-38, New Delhi, relating to assessment year 2013-

14.2.

The grounds raised by the assessee are as under:- “Appeal under section 253(1 )(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) against the order dated December 13, 2017 (received on March 14, 2018) passed under section 250(6) of the Act by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 38, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] for assessment year 2013-14. 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer (“AO”) erred in completing the assessment of the Appellant at a loss of INR 10,26,64,940 as against returned l

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 32

All 2,762 judgments and leading authorities on Section 32 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →