THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU vs. M/S HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/228/2012HC KarnatakaKAHC01035199201230 November 2020Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appellate authorities were correct in allowing depreciation on intangible assets. The court answered the substantial questions of law against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order allowing the assessee to claim depreciation on intangible assets. The assessee had claimed depreciation on intangible assets valued at Rs. 2,87,05,957/-. The Revenue contended that these assets were not identified and were based on an ad hoc estimate.

What were the issues?

Whether depreciation can be claimed on intangible assets that are not precisely identified or based on an ad hoc estimate, and whether the actual cost and date of acquisition are necessary for such claims.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 32(1)(ii),Section 43(1),Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.228 OF 2012 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

LTU

JSS TOWERS

BSK III STAGE

BANGALORE. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

CIRCLE - 11(4)

RASHTROTHANA BHAVAN

NRUPATHUNGA ROAD

BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI.K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND: M/S HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY COMPAQ COMPUTERS INDIA P. LTD.) NO.24, SALARPURIA ARENA HOSUR MAIN ROAD ADUGODI BANGALORE - 560 030. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI.PERCY PARDIWALLA SR.ADV. SRI.T.SURYANARAYANA, ADV.) - - -

2 THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 21.03.2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.617/BANG/2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, PRAYING TO: (I) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN. (II) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.617/BANG/2010 DATED 21.03.2012 CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(4), BANGALORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the revenue. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 2004-05. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 12.09.2012 on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the appellate authorities were correct in holding that assessee is entitled to claim depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act in respect of intangible assets of Rs.2,87,05,957/- when the same is

3 not identified and is based on adhoc estimate basis and not on actual cost as per Section 43(1) of the Act? (ii) Whether the appellate authorities were correct in recording a finding that intangible assets valued at Rs.2,87,05,957/- qualifies for claiming deduction under Section 32 of the Act, when the assessee had not been identified the precise value attributable to the asset at the time of acquisition and when even the date of acquisition of the asset was not disclosed by the assessee? 2. For the reasons assigned in the judgment passed by us today in I.T.A.No.250/2011, the substantial questions of law framed by a bench of this court is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.

4 In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE ss

More judgments on Section 32(1)(ii)

All 565 judgments and leading authorities on Section 32(1)(ii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →