← All Phrases

“intangible assets”

DepreciationSection 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(ii)1,121 judgments

The decision most relied on for intangible assets is CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty (128 ITR 294), cited in 628 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on intangible assets

CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty
128 ITR 294 · 1981 · Supreme Court
628
citing judgments

When the cost of acquisition of a capital asset cannot be determined, the computation mechanism for capital gains fails, and thus no capital gains can be charged. This establishes a broader principle that a charging section cannot operate in the absence of specific machinery provisions for computation.

CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd.
348 ITR 302 · 2012 · Supreme Court
540
citing judgments

Goodwill, whether arising from an amalgamation or a slump sale, is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1) of the Income-tax Act. While the assessee must prove the existence and valuation of such goodwill, it is recognized as a depreciable asset.

Techno Shares and Stocks Ltd. v. CIT
327 ITR 323 · 2010 · Supreme Court
130
citing judgments

Membership rights and business contracts, as 'business or commercial rights of similar nature' to a license or franchise, qualify as intangible assets eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act.

Amway India Enterprises v. DCIT
111 ITD 112 · 2008 · ITAT
127
citing judgments

Depreciation is allowable on computer software, including software licenses, at the rate of 60%.

Areva T&D India Ltd. v. DCIT
345 ITR 421 · 2012 · High Court
97
citing judgments

Business contracts and commercial rights of similar nature qualify as intangible assets under Section 32(1)(ii) and are eligible for depreciation. The decision also affirms that goodwill is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation.

CIT v. Tata Services Ltd.
122 ITR 594 · 1980 · High Court
76
citing judgments

A right to purchase property under an agreement to sell is a capital asset as defined under Section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act. The relinquishment or extinguishment of such a right constitutes a transfer of a capital asset, the consideration for which is taxable as capital gains.

Guffic Chem (P.) Ltd. v. CIT
332 ITR 602 · 2011 · Supreme Court
66
citing judgments

Compensation received for a non-compete covenant or for not carrying on a specific business activity is a capital receipt and not liable to tax as business income.

ACIT v. Progressive Constructions Ltd.
92 Taxmann.com 104 · 2018 · ITAT
63
citing judgments

Rights acquired under a concession agreement for highway construction, which generate revenue through toll collections, constitute an 'intangible asset' under section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, eligible for depreciation, typically at 25%. This includes claiming depreciation on the opening Written Down Value (WDV) for such highway projects.

Judgments citing intangible assets

Bakeri Projects Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee on this ground are allowed

ITA 785/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-D.R
Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 32Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)

Supreme Court in the case of Smifs Securities Ltd. In the present case under consideration it is an accepted proposition that goodwill is an intangible asset on which the assessee can claim depreciation. In the case of Zydus Wellness Centre Ltd. Vs. DCIT, the ITAT allowed the claim of depreciation ... case of Smifs Securities Ltd. (supra), paras 4 to 7 read as under. “4. Explanation 3 states that the expression 'asset' shall mean an intangible asset, being know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature. A reading the words "any other

Cpl Holdings LLP (Successor to Cpl Holdings Private Limited), Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1022/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32

declaring total loss of Rs.27,52,15,688/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny on the issue of investment in intangible assets. In the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer found that the intangible assets were generated as an outcome of IRM Brands Pvt. Ltd. (transferor company) being amalgamated

Panasonic India Private Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Neac, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 612/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshpanasonic India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Neac, 12Th Floor, Ambience New Delhi Corporate Office, Tower-2, Ambience Island, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcp9391B

For Appellant: Shri Kanchan Kaushal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Jadav, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92BSection 92C

principal to principal basis and resold to customers without undertaking any value addition or any sort of processing whatsoever to these traded goods. No intangible assets were employed to add value to these traded goods by the assessee. The assessee benchmarked the international transaction in its distribution segment by using ... reseller purchases tangible property or obtain services from an A.E. and reseller does not physically alter the tangible goods and services or use any intangible assets to add substantial value to the property or services i.e., resale is made without any value addition having been made. Therefore, in such

Malwa Oxygen and Industrial Gases Private Limited, Sector C, Industrial Area vs. AO-Ratlam/Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Ratlam/Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 713/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 35Section 35(1)

under: “32. Depreciation: (1) In respect of depreciation of - (i) Building, machinery, plant or furniture, being tangible assets; (ii) Know-how, patents ....., being intangible assets ... ” Owned, wholly or partly, by the assessee and used for the purposes of the business or profession, the following deduction shall be allowed ...... ” We agree

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax -7(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Horizon Packs Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6096/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT D/R
Section 143(2)Section 32Section 801A

such issues initially are as under: S. No. Issues i. Ai. iii. iv. Deduction Claimed for Industrial Undertaking u/s 801A/801AB/80IAC/IB/IC/IBA/80ID/80IE/10A/10AA Business Expenses Investment in Intangible Assets Amalgamation or Demerger 3. उपरोक्त को ध्यान में रखते हुए उल्लेखित मुद्दो के उत्तर आप संबंधित दस्तावेजो (यदि कोई हो) सहित निर्धारण अधिकारी को ... Yours Sincerely, For Horizon Packs Private Limited ON PACKS 8. Authorise Sign Complete scheme of amalgamation and further on Note on Amalgamation & Investment in Intangible Assets, explained as under:- “During AY 2017-18, Pyramid Packaging Private Limited ("Pyramid"), Monad Technologies Private Limited ("Monad") and Sigma Corru Box Private Limited ("Sigma

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -7(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Horizon Packs Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5950/MUM/2024[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT D/R
Section 143(2)Section 32

such issues initially are as under: S. No. Issues i. Ai. iii. iv. Deduction Claimed for Industrial Undertaking u/s 801A/801AB/80IAC/IB/IC/IBA/80ID/80IE/10A/10AA Business Expenses Investment in Intangible Assets Amalgamation or Demerger 3. उपरोक्त को ध्यान में रखते हुए उल्लेखित मुद्दो के उत्तर आप संबंधित दस्तावेजो (यदि कोई हो) सहित निर्धारण अधिकारी को ... Yours Sincerely, For Horizon Packs Private Limited ON PACKS Authorise Sign 8. Complete scheme of amalgamation and further on Note on Amalgamation & Investment in Intangible Assets, explained as under:- “During AY 2017-18, Pyramid Packaging Private Limited ("Pyramid"), Monad Technologies Private Limited ("Monad") and Sigma Corru Box Private Limited ("Sigma

DCIT Circle-13(2), New Delhi vs. Jus Scriptum Magnus Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, we dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue

ITA 8259/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Pramod Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

company to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer, based on the value, on the date of issue of shares, of its assets, including intangible assets being goodwill, know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licences, 14 franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, whichever is higher

Pmv Maltings Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-19(2), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee for ITA No

ITA 6906/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 143(3)Section 32

Court in the case of Smifs Securities Limited 348 ITR 302. The principal argument of the lower authorities has been goodwill is not an intangible asset and hence not eligible for depreciation. It was further argued that the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smifs Securities ... facts Page 3 of 19 ITA Nos. 3103 & 6906/Del/2019 and judicial precedents governing the issue. The Ld.Counsel fiercely contested that the goodwill is an intangible asset within the meanings of section 32 of the Act and that the same has been also held by Hon’ble Apex Court

Pmv Maltings Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-19(2), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee for ITA No

ITA 3103/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 143(3)Section 32

Court in the case of Smifs Securities Limited 348 ITR 302. The principal argument of the lower authorities has been goodwill is not an intangible asset and hence not eligible for depreciation. It was further argued that the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smifs Securities ... facts Page 3 of 19 ITA Nos. 3103 & 6906/Del/2019 and judicial precedents governing the issue. The Ld.Counsel fiercely contested that the goodwill is an intangible asset within the meanings of section 32 of the Act and that the same has been also held by Hon’ble Apex Court

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2.1.1, Vejalpur vs. Mundra International Container Terminal Pvt. Ltd., Kutch

In the result, the grounds raised by the Revenue for AYs 2017-18 and 2018-19 are dismissed

ITA 1268/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalmundra International Container Dcit, Vs. Terminal Private Limited, Circle 2(1)(1), Navinal, New Mundra Port, Post Ahmedabad Box No.8, Mundra, Kutch [Pan : Aadca 0917 C]

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 14ASection 250Section 80I

raised following grounds of appeal :- “1."Whether the CIT/A) is justified in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of depreciation of intangible assets of Rs.2,40,44,534/- when the assessee (lessee) as well as the lessor i.e. Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone Ltd, both have claimed ... made by him in his order. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as Revenue in this regard are dismissed. Depreciation on Intangible Assets – AY 2017-18 :- Ground No. 1 of the Revenue’s appeal 7. The issue raised by the Department by way of Ground

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Vejalpur vs. Mundra International Container Terminal Pvt. Ltd., Kachchh

In the result, the grounds raised by the Revenue for AYs 2017-18 and 2018-19 are dismissed

ITA 1261/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalmundra International Container Dcit, Vs. Terminal Private Limited, Circle 2(1)(1), Navinal, New Mundra Port, Post Ahmedabad Box No.8, Mundra, Kutch [Pan : Aadca 0917 C]

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 14ASection 250Section 80I

raised following grounds of appeal :- “1."Whether the CIT/A) is justified in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of depreciation of intangible assets of Rs.2,40,44,534/- when the assessee (lessee) as well as the lessor i.e. Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone Ltd, both have claimed ... made by him in his order. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as Revenue in this regard are dismissed. Depreciation on Intangible Assets – AY 2017-18 :- Ground No. 1 of the Revenue’s appeal 7. The issue raised by the Department by way of Ground

Mundra International Container Terminal Private Limited, Mundra vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Ahmedabad

In the result, the grounds raised by the Revenue for AYs 2017-18 and 2018-19 are dismissed

ITA 1241/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalmundra International Container Dcit, Vs. Terminal Private Limited, Circle 2(1)(1), Navinal, New Mundra Port, Post Ahmedabad Box No.8, Mundra, Kutch [Pan : Aadca 0917 C]

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 14ASection 250Section 80I

raised following grounds of appeal :- “1."Whether the CIT/A) is justified in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of depreciation of intangible assets of Rs.2,40,44,534/- when the assessee (lessee) as well as the lessor i.e. Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone Ltd, both have claimed ... made by him in his order. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as Revenue in this regard are dismissed. Depreciation on Intangible Assets – AY 2017-18 :- Ground No. 1 of the Revenue’s appeal 7. The issue raised by the Department by way of Ground

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -16(1), Mumbai vs. Eagle Fims, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of

ITA 3204/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt.Renu Jauhri(Physical Hearing)

Section 2(14)Section 254(1)Section 55(2)(a)

assessment order. The assessee stated that film rights were capital asset as defined in section2(14) of the Act. The film rights were intangible assets within the meaning of section 55(2)(a) of the Act. Such rights were received by closure. The assessee was holding exclusive copyright ... Such fact is not controverted with reason. The Ld.CIT(A) further noted that Ld.AO failed to take into consideration that films’ rights are intangible assets, whose cost is zero and, therefore, would not appear in the books of account. There can be no mention in the balance-sheet about

Jubilant Generics Ltd., Noida vs. ACIT, Circle- 5(1)(1), G.B. Nagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 2004/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 92C

AO/TPO/DRP erred in treatment of the following items as operating while computing the Appellant's operating profitability from the impugned transactions. 4.1 "Impairment of intangible assets” 4.2 Loss on sale/ disposal of property/ plant and equipment 4.3 Subsidy received on capital assets 6. The Ld. AO/TPO/DRP erred in rejecting functionally ... Study report of the assessee, these AEs perform routine functions and are not engaged in complex activities and do not own any/minimal intangible assets; therefore, these AEs have been taken by the appellant assessee as tested parties for benchmarking purposes. The OP/OR has been take as Profit Level Indicator

DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Mumbai vs. Yola Stays Limited, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1252/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Swapnil Chaudhary, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Hirani (Virtually
Section 250Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as goodwill related to land and does not qualify for depreciation as an intangible asset." 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in interpreting the provisions of Section ... provisions of Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by allowing depreciation on goodwill, which is not related to any identifiable intangible asset with a defined useful life, and thus should not have been allowed for depreciation.” 2. The assessee is a company engaged in the business

Andante Foods LLP, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru

Appeal are allowed, and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1723/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2020-21

For Respondent: Shri Harsha M., CA
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 92C

being holding company of its Associated Enterprise (AE). 1.3 The TPO erred by not recognising the fact that the Appellant owns significant non- routine intangible assets. 1.4 The TPO erred on facts and in law in carrying out a fresh benchmarking analysis with the Appellant as the tested party wherein ... Appellant is a complex and unique entity owning intangible assets. 2 Interest on delayed trade receivables 2.1 The TPO erred in law and in facts in considering outstanding receivables of the Appellant from its AE as separate international transaction and re-characterising the receivables as loan

Amara Raja Power Systems Limited, Tirupati vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Tirupati

ITA 790/HYD/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2020-2021
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263

under the E- Assessment Scheme, 2019 on certain issues, viz. (i). stock valuation; (ii). refund claim ICDS; (iii). compliance and adjustment; (iv) investment in intangible assets; and (v). deductions claimed from total income under Chapter VI-A of the Act. 4. Thereafter, the A.O. framed the assessment vide his order

Jsw Industrial Gases Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(3)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 1382/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37Section 80G

repairs and insurance of plant, machinery and furniture • Section 32 provides for depreciation on tangible assets like building, machinery, plant, furniture and also on intangible assets like know-how, patents, trademarks, licenses. • Section 33 allows development rebate on machinery, plants and ships. • Section 34 states conditions for depreciation and development

Sprit Infrapower & Multiventures Private Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT-8, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1589/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, AR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32(1)

goodwill is an asset under the expression used in explanation 3(b) to sec.32(1) and therefore, depreciation is allowable on such assets as intangible assets being any other business or commercial rights of similar nature. The Hon'ble ITAT further stated that there is no dispute with regard ... rider which inter alia disentitles the amalgamating company and the amalgamated company in the case of amalgamation to claim depreciation on tangible assets or intangible assets, the aggregate of which would exceed the claim of such deduction as per the prescribed rates in case the amalgamation had not taken place

Ebix Travels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle 2(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 47/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararjan K

Section 143Section 144BSection 144CSection 234ASection 234BSection 32Section 92CSection 92D

assessee has relied only on financial Statements before AO, assessment unit and before DRP and nothing in the financial statements supports the value of intangible assets opening WDV for any of the years, nor the assessee has produced any of the initial opening written down value for the year ... existence, the value is not substantiated as an allowable deduction/business expenses under section 32 of the act. Thus, the value of depreciation claimed on intangible assets is disallowed and added to the income. That the disallowance made by the learned assessment unit under section