ACIT, Circle 10(2), Hyderabad v. Progressive Construction Ltd.

191 TTJ 549Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2018#7741 most cited
14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Issues it is cited on

section 32(1)(ii)commercial rightsinfrastructure facilitysection 32(1)intangible assetsenduring benefitsection 32transferprescribedcompanysection 250business

Judgments citing ACIT, Circle 10(2), Hyderabad v. Progressive Construction Ltd.

JCIT(OSD), CC-1, LKO, LUCKNOW vs. ACP TOLLWAYS PRIVATE LIMITED, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed and the Cross\nObjection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 131/LKW/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Oct 2025AY 2021-22
Section 143(2)Section 32

…ribunal in various other cases where depreciation has been claimed\non \"right to collect toll\", considering it to be an intangible asset. The\nHyderabad Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. M/s.\nProgressive Construction Limited reported as 191 TTJ 549 has held that\nNational Highway constructed on BOT basis gives rise to an intangible\nasset in the form of right to collect toll charges u/s.32(1)(ii) and the\nassessee is eligible to claim depreciation on such asset. Thus, in view of\nthe above decisions of the Tribunal we find no infirmity in the impugned\norder. Accordingly, the same is upheld…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, NASHIK vs. MAHAKALESHWAR TOLLWAYS PRIVATE LIMITED, UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 123/IND/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Judicial Memebr & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 123/Ind/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

…ecisions including the following: 1. ITAT, Pune decision, in the case of ITO Vs. Ashoka Highways (Durg) Ltd. (55 CCH 113 - Page No. 194 to 196), 2. ITAT, Hyderabad Bench (Special Bench) decision in the case of Progressive Constructions Ltd (92 Taxman.com 104,191 TTJ 549 - Page Nos. 197 to 226), 3. ITAT, Pune Bench 'A' decision in the case of Ashoka Infrastructure Ltd, in ITA No. 1452 to 1457/PUN/2014 decided on 30.06.2017 (Page Nos. 227 to 266), wherein even the issue arising out of the CBDT Circular No.9/2014 dt. 23.04.2014 is decided. 4. ITAT, Hyderabad Bench B, in the case of MokamaMunger Highway Ltd. Vs.ACIT…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1, NASHIK vs. M/S. JAORA NAYAGAON TOLL ROAD COMPANY PVT. LTD, INDOR

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 431/PUN/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.431/Pun/2020 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Dcit, Central Circle -1,Nashik

For Appellant: Shri Vijay SonawaneFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar
Section 132ASection 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 32(1)(ii)

…relief not u/s. 32(1)(ii) regarding its “right to collect toll” as an intangible asset u/s. 32(1)(ii) but in the capacity of “ owner” of the road project. The same stands distinguished therefore. We rather quote ACIT V/s. Progressive Construction Ltd. (2018) 191 TTJ 549 (Hyd.) (SB) deciding the very issue of depreciation on right to collect toll u/s.32(1)(ii) in assessee’s favour to uphold the CIT(A)’s findings under challenge. 5 A.Y. : 2010-11 M/s. Jaora Nayagaon Toll Road Co. Pvt.Ltd., 6. This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed in above terms. Order pronounced in the Open Court on this 29th day of August, 2022.…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. GURUVAYOOR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 381/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Venkatraman IyerFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai
Section 143

…depreciation on 'right to collect toll' being an intangible asset. 2.6 Relevant extract of the ruling is reproduced below: We find that the "Special bench"" of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT, Circle 10(2}, Hyderabad, Vs. Progressive Construction Ltd. (2018) 191 TTJ 549 (Hyd.(SB), had concluded, that where an Infrastructure Development company that had constructed a road on build, operate and transfer (BOT) basis on the land owned by the Central Government gets vested with a right to an intangible asset under Explanation 3(b} r.w. Sec.32(l}(ii} of the Act, the assessee would be eligible to claim depreciation on…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. GURUVAYOOR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 380/HYD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Venkatraman IyerFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai
Section 143

…depreciation on 'right to collect toll' being an intangible asset. 2.6 Relevant extract of the ruling is reproduced below: We find that the "Special bench"" of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT, Circle 10(2}, Hyderabad, Vs. Progressive Construction Ltd. (2018) 191 TTJ 549 (Hyd.(SB), had concluded, that where an Infrastructure Development company that had constructed a road on build, operate and transfer (BOT) basis on the land owned by the Central Government gets vested with a right to an intangible asset under Explanation 3(b} r.w. Sec.32(l}(ii} of the Act, the assessee would be eligible to claim depreciation on…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. GURUVAYOOR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1641/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Venkatraman IyerFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai
Section 143

…depreciation on 'right to collect toll' being an intangible asset. 2.6 Relevant extract of the ruling is reproduced below: We find that the "Special bench"" of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT, Circle 10(2}, Hyderabad, Vs. Progressive Construction Ltd. (2018) 191 TTJ 549 (Hyd.(SB), had concluded, that where an Infrastructure Development company that had constructed a road on build, operate and transfer (BOT) basis on the land owned by the Central Government gets vested with a right to an intangible asset under Explanation 3(b} r.w. Sec.32(l}(ii} of the Act, the assessee would be eligible to claim depreciation on…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. GURUVAYOOR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVAT LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1640/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Venkatraman IyerFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai
Section 143

…depreciation on 'right to collect toll' being an intangible asset. 2.6 Relevant extract of the ruling is reproduced below: We find that the "Special bench"" of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT, Circle 10(2}, Hyderabad, Vs. Progressive Construction Ltd. (2018) 191 TTJ 549 (Hyd.(SB), had concluded, that where an Infrastructure Development company that had constructed a road on build, operate and transfer (BOT) basis on the land owned by the Central Government gets vested with a right to an intangible asset under Explanation 3(b} r.w. Sec.32(l}(ii} of the Act, the assessee would be eligible to claim depreciation on…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. GURUVAYOOR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1639/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Venkatraman IyerFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai
Section 143

…depreciation on 'right to collect toll' being an intangible asset. 2.6 Relevant extract of the ruling is reproduced below: We find that the "Special bench"" of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT, Circle 10(2}, Hyderabad, Vs. Progressive Construction Ltd. (2018) 191 TTJ 549 (Hyd.(SB), had concluded, that where an Infrastructure Development company that had constructed a road on build, operate and transfer (BOT) basis on the land owned by the Central Government gets vested with a right to an intangible asset under Explanation 3(b} r.w. Sec.32(l}(ii} of the Act, the assessee would be eligible to claim depreciation on…

SAGAR DAMOH TOLL ROADS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 8(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3147/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesagar Damoh Toll Vs. Acit, Circle – 8(1)(2) Roads Ltd Room No. 651, 6Th 513A, 5Th Floor, Floor, Aayakar Kohinoor City, Kirol Bhavan, Mk Road, Road, Off Lbs Marg, Mumbai – 400020. Kurla, Mumbai – 400070 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacce2160Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. K. Shivaram.Ar Respondent By : Shri Ajay K. Shrivastava.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Mumbai Passed 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri. K. Shivaram.ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay K. Shrivastava.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 32(1)(ii)

…aim of the assessee towards deprecation u/s 32(1)(ii) in respect of its intangible rights i.e “right to collect toll” . 10. We find that the „Special bench‟ of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT, Circle 10(2), Hyderabad, Vs. Progressive Construction Ltd. (2018) 191 TTJ 549 (Hyd.) (SB), had concluded, that where an Infrastructure Development company which had constructed a road on build, operate and transfer (BOT) basis on the land owned by the Central Government, gets vested with a right to an intangible asset under Explanation 3(b) r.w. Sec.32(1)(ii), the assessee would be eligible to claim depreciation on such as…

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3326/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2021AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CAFor Respondent: Shri Munesh Kumar, CIT, DR
Section 250(6)Section 253Section 32

…ation in respect of its intangible rights i.e “right to collect toll” under Sec. 32(1)(ii) is squarely covered by the aforesaid order of the „Special bench‟ of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT, Circle 10(2), Hyderabad, Vs. Progressive Construction Ltd. (2018) 191 TTJ 549 (Hyd.) (SB) and also the orders of the coordinate benches of the Tribunal viz. (i) DCIT, Circle-9(1)(2),Mumbai Vs. 13 M/s Atlanta Ltd. Mumbai (ITA No. 3415/Mum/2015, dated 24.01.2018); (ii) ACIT Vs. M/s PNG Tata Ltd. (ITA No. 238/CHNNY/2019, dated 26.07.2019); AND (iii). ACIT (Cir). 6(2)(2), Mumbai Vs. M/s Essel Sagar Damoh Toll Roads Ltd, ITA No…

NORTH KARNATAKA EXPRESSWAY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 4372/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita No. 4372 & 4373/Mum/2012 (Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2006-07) North Karnataka Expressway Acit – 10(1), 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd. The Il & Fs Financial Vs. Center, Plot No. C-22; G- M.K. Road, Block, Bandra Kurla Mumbai 400 020 Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai- 400 051 Pan No. Aabcn3062F

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bhalla, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 234BSection 40Section 80G

…im of the assessee towards deprecation u/s 32(1)(ii) in respect of its intangible rights i.e “right to collect toll” . 10. We find that the „Special bench‟ of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT, Circle 10(2), Hyderabad, Vs. Progressive Construction Ltd. (2018) 191 TTJ 549 (Hyd.) (SB), had concluded, that where an Infrastructure Development company that had constructed a road on build, operate and transfer (BOT) basis on the land owned by the Central Government gets vested with a right to an intangible asset under Explanation 3(b) r.w. Sec.32(1)(ii) of the Act, the assessee would be eligible to claim depreciation o…

M/S BAUL MSK INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 15(1)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, the aforesaid issue is restored to the file of the A.O in terms of our aforesaid directions. The Ground of appeal No. 2 is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3244/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () M/S Bul Msk Infrastructure Pvt. Acit -15(1)(2), Ltd., 1008, 10Th Floor –V, Vs. Room No. 403, 4Th Floor Time Square, Plot No. 3, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Sector 14, Belapur Cbd, Mumbai 400 020 Navi Mumbai- 400614 Pan No. Aaccb9447M (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Devendra Jain, A.R Revenue By : Shri Tharian Oommen, Sr. D.R Date Of Hearing : 23/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 22/04/2021

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Tharian Oommen, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32Section 36(1)(iii)

…tion in respect of its intangible rights i.e “right to collect toll” under Sec. 32(1)(ii), is squarely covered by the aforesaid order of the „Special bench‟ of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT, Circle 10(2), Hyderabad, Vs. Progressive Construction Ltd. (2018) 191 TTJ 549 (Hyd.) (SB) and also the orders of the coordinate benches of the Tribunal viz. (i) DCIT, Circle-9(1)(2),Mumbai Vs. M/s Atlanta Ltd. Mumbai (ITA No. 3415/Mum/2015, dated 24.01.2018); and (ii) ACIT Vs. M/s PNG Tata Ltd. (ITA No. 238/CHNNY/2019, dated 26.07.2019. We, thus, finding ourselves to be in agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal in t…

ASST CIT 6(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. ESSEL SAGAR DAMOH TOLL ROADS, MUMBAI

ITA 7114/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodasstt. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Cir)- M/S Essel Sagar Damoh Toll Roads Ltd. 6(2)(2), Room No. 563, Aayakar Bhavan, 135, Continental Build. A.B. Road, M.K. Road, Churchgate Vs. Mumbai – 400018 Mumbai- 400 020. Pan – Aacce2160Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri RiteshMisra, D.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Shivram, A.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32

…aim of the assessee towards deprecation u/s 32(1)(ii) in respect of its intangible rights i.e “right to collect toll” . 10. We find that the „Special bench‟ of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT, Circle 10(2), Hyderabad, Vs. Progressive Construction Ltd. (2018) 191 TTJ 549 (Hyd.) (SB), had concluded, that where an Infrastructure Development company which had constructed a road on build, operate and transfer (BOT) basis on the land owned by the Central Government, gets vested with a right to an intangible asset under Explanation 3(b) r.w. Sec.32(1)(ii), the assessee would be eligible to claim depreciation on such as…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. MAHAKALESHWAR TOLLWAYS PVT LTD.,,

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2641/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri K. Venkata ChalamFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Prasad
Section 32(1)(ii)

…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…

ACIT, Circle 10(2), Hyderabad v. Progressive Construction Ltd. (191 TTJ 549) — Cited in 14 Judgments | BharatTax