“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

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

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

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

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

Dy CIT 10(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Novateur Electricals and Digital Systems Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1189/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Tiwari and Shri Lekh Mehta, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 32Section 92CSection 92C(2)

above, erred in rejecting the alternate contention to consider the cash profits as PLI (le operating profit before depreciation/ amortization on tangible and intangible assets) to eliminate the difference in exceptional/extra ordinary depreciation so as to make an apple to apple comparison n) erred in treating foreign exchange loss ... Value Fair value Adjustment Value Fair value of invested capital 560.8 5439.2 6000 Fair value of tangible assets 548.2 279.8 828 Fair value of intangible assets 12.6 5159.4 5172 6.1. According to him, the fair value adjustment of the large areas of the land, building and plant and machinery amounts

ACIT, Circle- 9(1), New Delhi vs. Fis Global Business Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and CO of the assessee are partly allowed as above for statistical purposes

ITA 372/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sudhir Pareek & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Global Ltd.: 17. The Ld. CIT-DR prayed for inclusion of this comparable. He submitted that this comparable was functionally similar and its intangible assets including goodwill had not materially impacted its profitability. The Ld. CIT- DR, emphasizing the Rule 10(B)(3) of Income Tax Rules, argued that ... this comparable was rightly excluded by the Ld. CIT(A) from the list of final comparables. It was further submitted that it had significant intangible assets of INR 16.95 crores i.e. more than 64% of its net fixed assets as against the assessee which had no intangible assets (page

Goldman Sachs (India) Finance Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, Income-Tax Department, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 6766/MUM/2024[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 253Section 32Section 37(1)

change in market sentiments. 12. Section 32 of the Income Tax Act deals with the manner of computation of depreciation of tangible and intangible assets owned and used for the purposes of business. Explanation-1 to section 32 of the Act also allows depreciation to the taxpayer in a case

Red Hat India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/ITO/ Circle 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2442/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2018-19 Red Hat India Private Limited, Asst. Commissioner Of A-201, Supreme Business Park, Income Tax/Income Tax Officer, Supreme City, Vs. Circle-15(3)(1), Hiranandani Gardens, Mumbai. Powai, Mumbai-400076. Pan : Aabcr7097N (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ajit Jain, For Revenue : Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 13-08-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22-08-2025 O R D E R Per Amit Shukla, J.M : The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 27/07/2022 Passed By The Acit, Circle 15(3)(1) Mumbai, U/S 144C(13) For The A.Y. 2018-19, In Pursuance To The Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Mumbai-2, Dated 15/06/2022 U/S 144C(5).

For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

assessee, we are of the considered view that assessee is a limited risk reseller having no plant and equipments, owning no intangible assets, having no expenses on promotions and is not selling its product. So K7 is not a valid comparable vis-à-vis K7, hence ordered to beexcluded ... performed, assets employed, and risks assumed. The activities of such education-based companies are not only different in nature, but also involve ownership of intangible assets like goodwill, brand value, and teaching methodologies, which make their margins incomparable to the assessee’s business model. It is also pertinent to note

ACIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Bratpal Singh Tyagi, Hapur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA

ITA 4359/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

No.3348/DEL/2024 Department, as in none of the places of survey nothing was found by way of cash, bullion, jewellery, investment or any tangible or intangible assets as assessed u/s 69A. He submitted that copy of statement of Shri B.S. Tyagi dated 13.09.2017 at survey on Uniplus Biotech ... page no.34 of the assessment order. Further he submitted that assessee has neither surrendered nor found any stock investment of tangible and intangible assets u/s 69A and relied ITA No.3348/DEL/2024 upon CBDT instructions dated 23.03.2013 and various case laws to support that there was no surrender u/s 69A and income

Brat Pal Singh Tragi Through Legal Heir Smt. Suman Lata, Hapur vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA

ITA 4132/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Brat Pal Singh Tyagi, Hapur vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA

ITA 3348/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu Circle 1 Chennai, Chennai vs. Carborundum Universal Limited, Chennai

ITA 48/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ It(Tp)A Nos.2, 3 & 4/Chny/2025 िनधा@रण वष@ /Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Senthil Kumar, Addl. CIT

observed that the Assessee company acquired two Units at Jabalpur on-going concern basis for a consideration of Rs.320 lakhs which included the intangible assets towards brand value amounting to Rs.16 lakhs. The Assessee claimed depreciation at 25% on the intangible assets of the brand value. The claim for depreciation

Thermo Fisher Scientific India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as per our aforesaid

ITA 2847/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2847/Mum/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2020-21 Thermo Fisher Scientific India Private Limited 403-404, Delphil B Wing, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai Iit, Mumbai-400 076 Pan : Aabct3207A ........अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-15(3)(1), Mumbai ......प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vipul Soni Revenue By : Shri Himanshu Joshi, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing :14.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 20.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri Vipul SoniFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 32(1)Section 80G

part of slump sale 3. erred in disregarding the valuation reports and concluding that such manufacturing and supply contracts are not an intangible asset as per Accounting Standard (AS.)-26 issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India 4. without prejudice, erred in not considering the value of manufacturing ... DCIT-15(3)(1), Mumbai ITA No. 2847/MUM/2025 7. erred in disregarding the valuation report and concluding that such contracts are not an intangible asset as per Accounting Standard ('AS')-26 issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India 8. without prejudice, erred in not considering the value

DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Aia Engineering Limited, Ahmedabad

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2170/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Us. He Pointed Out That There Were Common Issues In All The Appeals Pertaining To The Following Additions:

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT. DR

Section 250Section 80G

deleting the Disallowance of additional depreciation of Rs.2,78,58,045/- without appreciating the facts of the case? 3. Disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets (Goodwill) of Rs.80,97,963/- without appreciating the facts of the case?" 4. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground ... deleting of addition of Rs.72,17,09,380/- made by the Assessing Officer in the hands of the Appellant?" 2. Disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets (Goodwill) of Rs.60,73,472) without appreciating the facts of the case?" 3. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground

DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Aia Engineering Limited, Ahmedabad

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2169/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Us. He Pointed Out That There Were Common Issues In All The Appeals Pertaining To The Following Additions:

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT. DR

Section 250Section 80G

deleting the Disallowance of additional depreciation of Rs.2,78,58,045/- without appreciating the facts of the case? 3. Disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets (Goodwill) of Rs.80,97,963/- without appreciating the facts of the case?" 4. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground ... 2170/Ahd/2024 [DCIT vs. AIA Engineering Limited] A.Ys. 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 & 2021-22 - 7 – 2. Disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets (Goodwill) of Rs.60,73,472) without appreciating the facts of the case?" 3. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground

DCIT, Circle - 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Aia Engineering Ltd, Ahmedabad

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2168/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 250Section 80G

deleting the Disallowance of additional depreciation of Rs.2,78,58,045/- without appreciating the facts of the case? 3. Disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets (Goodwill) of Rs.80,97,963/- without appreciating the facts of the case?" 4. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground ... Nos.2167 to 2170/Ahd/2024 [DCIT vs. AIA Engineering Limited] A.Ys.2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 & 2021-22 -7- 2. Disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets (Goodwill) of Rs.60,73,472) without appreciating the facts of the case?" 3. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground

DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Aia Engineering Limited, Ahmedabad

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2167/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us. He Pointed Out That There Were Common Issues In All The Appeals Pertaining To The Following Additions:

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT. DR

Section 250Section 80G

deleting the Disallowance of additional depreciation of Rs.2,78,58,045/- without appreciating the facts of the case? 3. Disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets (Goodwill) of Rs.80,97,963/- without appreciating the facts of the case?" 4. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground ... 2170/Ahd/2024 [DCIT vs. AIA Engineering Limited] A.Ys. 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 & 2021-22 - 7 – 2. Disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets (Goodwill) of Rs.60,73,472) without appreciating the facts of the case?" 3. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground

Sabeena Silk Mills, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 31(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 1508/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narndra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjeesabeena Silk Mills Vs Income-Tax Officer 31(1)(1), Apurva Industrial Estate, Mumbai, Majwana Road, Marol Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra, Mumbai-400 059 Mumbai-400 051 Pan: Aabfs3210R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri H.N. MotiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui (SR.DR.)

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 50

furniture, being tangible assets. (ii) know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, being intangible assets acquired on or after the 1st day of April, 1998, not being goodwill of a business or profession, owned, wholly or partly, by the assessee

M/S T vs. Motor Company Limited, Chennaivs.ACIT Corporate Circle 3 (1), Chennai

ITA 2405/CHNY/2019[2014-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Aug 2025AY 2014-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 92C(2)

drawing and technical services together with the right to manufacture motor cycles. The impugned payment to BMW AG constituted payment for acquisition of intangible assets by way of drawings, design etc. The assessee had submitted that "...These expenses will be capital in nature which will have to be capitalized ... depreciation claimed as and when it is put in use. This clearly establishes the facts that this technical knowledge as an intangible asset clearly is eligible for depreciation as laid down u/s 32(1)(ii)...”. The Ld. AO rejected the argument of the assessee on the premise that allowance u/s.32AC

M/S. Religare Capital Markets Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 753/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 68Section 92Section 92B

appreciate that the assessee is engaged in routine business of institutional broking services and investment banking which does not create or carry any intangible assets and that its employees are engaged in equity research business for servicing the institutional clients which does not result in any enduring advantage ... appreciate that the assessee is engaged in routine business of institutional broking services and investment banking which does not create or carry any intangible assets and that its employees are engaged in equity research business for servicing the institutional clients which does not result in any enduring advantage

DCIT 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Max Hospitals and Allied Services Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3085/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

assessee strongly contended that the payment of non-refundable deposit for acquisition of rights for operation and management of a hospital is an intangible asset for the assessee and, therefore, covered under the provisions u/s 32(1)(ii) of the Act and is eligible for depreciation. The assessee also pointed ... income-tax Act also recognized and encouraging the start-ups." (iii) DQ (International) Ltd. (supra) "10........... In our considered view, for valuation of an intangible asset, only the future projections along can be adopted and such valuation cannot be reviewed with actuals after 3 or 4 years down the line

DCIT 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Max Hospitals and Allied Services Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3084/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

DCIT 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Max Hospitals and Allied Services Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3083/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

Xilinx India Technology Services Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-17(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1761/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri SP Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

Loss Account of Daffodil Software Ltd. reflects software product sales of Rs.1,64,63,671/-, and as per the asset schedule, the company holds intangible assets of Rs.3,15,75,892/-. Hence, the Ld. DRP concluded that due to these factors, the company was engaged in sale of products ... significant intangible assets, which made it functionally dissimilar to the Assessee. In their argument, the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. DRP erred in rejecting Daffodil Software Ltd. without examining the overall revenue profile and impact of intangibles on margins. Inviting our attention to Note No. 20 (Revenue from Operations