DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. MAHAKALESHWAR TOLLWAYS PVT LTD.,
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the 'right to collect toll' is an intangible asset and the assessee is eligible to claim depreciation on it. This decision was consistent with previous tribunal rulings on similar matters.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed depreciation on the 'license to collect toll' as an intangible asset. The Assessing Officer disallowed this claim, stating no intangible asset was acquired. The CIT(A) allowed the depreciation, following a previous tribunal ruling.
What were the issues?
Whether the 'license to collect toll' qualifies as an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide 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.
- ACIT, Circle 10(2), Hyderabad v. Progressive Construction Ltd.14 citing191 TTJ 549 · 2018 · ITAT
- Asstt. CIT v. Ashoka Infraways (P.) Ltd.8 citing33 Taxmann.com 499 · 2013 · ITAT
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, PUNE
Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL & SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM
आदेश / ORDER
PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM :
This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Pune dated 29-07-2016 for the assessment year 2011-12.
The solitary issue in appeal is : Whether the assessee is eligible to claim depreciation on „license to collect toll‟ considering it as an intangible
2 ITA No.2641/PUN/2016, A.Y. 2011-12
asset in terms of section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).
The brief facts of the case as emanating from records are : The assessee is engaged in development and construction of four laning of Indore-Ujjain Road on S.H. No. 27 from Chainage 5/2 at Indore to Chainage 53 at Ujjain on Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) basis. The assessee claimed depreciation on „license to collect toll‟ in its return of income. The Assessing Officer disallowed assessee‟s claim holding that no intangible asset has been acquired by the assessee. In first appeal the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) following the order of Tribunal in the case of M/s. Ashoka Infrastructure Limited Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 989/PUN/2010 allowed depreciation to the assessee, holding that the right to collect toll acquired by assessee is a depreciable intangible asset. Against the said findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the Revenue is in appeal.
Shri K. Venkata Chalam appearing on behalf of the assessee vehemently defended the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and further draws strength by placing reliance on the following decisions of Tribunal : i. ACIT Vs. Ashoka Infraways (P.) Ltd., 33 taxmann.com 499 (Pune- Trib.); ii. ACIT Vs. M/s. Ashoka DSC Katni By-Pass Road Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1637/PUN/2016; iii. Income Tax Officer Vs. M/s. Ashoka Highways (Bhandara) Ltd. in ITA No. 1630/PUN/2016.
3 ITA No.2641/PUN/2016, A.Y. 2011-12
On the other hand Shri S.B. Prasad representing the Department supported the order of Assessing Officer. The ld. DR submitted that the Revenue has filed appeal against the order of Tribunal in the case of M/s. Ashoka Infrastructure Limited Vs. ACIT (supra).
Both sides heard. The issue raised in present appeal was considered by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Ashoka Infrastructure Limited Vs. ACIT (supra). The Tribunal held that „right to collect toll‟ is an intangible asset and the assessee is entitled to claim depreciation on same. We find that consistent view has been taken by the Tribunal in various other cases where depreciation has been claimed on „right to collect toll‟, considering it to be an intangible asset. The Hyderabad Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. M/s. Progressive Construction Limited reported as 191 TTJ 549 has held that National Highway constructed on BOT basis gives rise to an intangible asset in the form of right to collect toll charges u/s. 32(1)(ii) and the assessee is eligible to claim depreciation on such asset. Thus, in view of the above decisions of the Tribunal we find no infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, the same is upheld and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed being devoid of any merit.
In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced on Monday, the 11th day of February, 2019.
Sd/- Sd/- (R.S. Syal) (Vikas Awasthy) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER ऩुणे / Pune; ददनाांक / Dated : 11th February, 2019. RK
4 ITA No.2641/PUN/2016, A.Y. 2011-12
आदेश की प्रनिलऱपप अग्रेपषि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीऱाथी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 2. आयकर आयुक्त (अऩीऱ) / The CIT(A)-13, Pune 3. 4. The DGIT (Inv), Pune ववभागीय प्रतततनधध, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, “ए” बेंच, 5. ऩुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. गार्ड फ़ाइऱ / Guard File. 6. //सत्यावऩत प्रतत// True Copy// आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER,
तनजी सधचव / Private Secretary, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, ऩुणे / ITAT, Pune
More judgments on Section 32(1)(ii)
- Msrdc Sea Link Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -4…ITA 3693/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
- Tata Communications Ltd, Mumbai vs DCIT 1(3)(2), MumbaiITA 977/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2011-12
- DCIT 1(3)(2), Mumbai vs Tata Communications Ltd, MumbaiITA 830/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2011-12
- Baleshwar Kharagpur Expressway Limited… vs PCIT-6, MumbaiITA 5714/MUM/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Bank of India, Mumbai vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, MumbaiITA 2810/MUM/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026