“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

Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Kothagudem vs. DCIT., Circle-13(1), Hyderabad

ITA 286/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.283, 284 & 286/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Singareni Collieries Vs. Acit, Circle – 1 Company Limited Khammam & Kothagudem Acit, Circle 13(1) Pan:Aaact8873F Hyderabad & आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.300, 301 & 308/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Vs. Dy. Cit, Circle 13(1) Hyderabad Singareni Collieries Company Limited Kothagudem Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, Advocate राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By:: Shri B Balakrishna, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 12/06/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These 3 Sets Of Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against The 3 Separate Orders All Dated 30/01/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Ys 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21 Respectively. The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Have Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeals For 3 A.Ys:

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri B Balakrishna, CIT (DR)

Section 194Section 32ASection 37Section 40Section 40A(9)

furniture, being tangible assets;(ii)know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licenses, 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 ... furniture, being tangible assets or know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licenses, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, being intangible assets allowable to the predecessor and the successor in the case of succession referred to in clause (xiii), clause (xiiib) and clause (xiv) of section

Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Kothagudem vs. ACIT., Circle-1, Khammam

In the result, assessee’s appeals for the A

ITA 284/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.283, 284 & 286/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Singareni Collieries Vs. Acit, Circle – 1 Company Limited Khammam & Kothagudem Acit, Circle 13(1) Pan:Aaact8873F Hyderabad & आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.300, 301 & 308/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Vs. Singareni Collieries Dy. Cit, Circle 13(1) Company Limited Hyderabad Kothagudem Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Balakrishna, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These 3 Sets Of Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against The 3 Separate Orders All Dated 30/01/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Ys 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21 Respectively. The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Have Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeals For 3 A.Ys:

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri B Balakrishna, CIT (DR)

Section 40A(9)

Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Kothagudem vs. ACIT., Circle- 1, Khammam

In the result, assessee’s appeals for the A

ITA 283/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri B Balakrishna, CIT (DR)

Section 40A(9)

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Eluru vs. The Andhra Sugars Limited, Tanuku

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 380/VIZ/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 380/Viz/2019 (धनिाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Andhra Sugars Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-1, Tanuku. Eluru. Pan: Aaact6357Q (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) सी.ओ सं. / C.O. No. 140/Viz/2019 [आयक अपील सं. से उत्पन्न / Arising Out Of I.T.A. No. 380/Viz/2019(A.Y. 2012-13)] M/S. Andhra Sugars Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Tanuku. Income Tax, Circle-1, Pan: Aaact6357Q Eluru. अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca प्रत्यार्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, CAFor Respondent: Dr.Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

inventories of the generating entities as they are generated and held for the purpose of sale in ordinary course. Even though CERs are intangible assets those should be accounted as per AS-2 (Valuation of inventories) at a cost or market price, whichever is lower. Since CERs are recognized

Iit Investrust Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 491)(2), Mumbai

ITA 3420/MUM/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2025AY 2008-09

For Respondent: Ms. Vranda Matkari

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 55(2)(ab)

order dated 1 1.08.2010 under section 154 of the Act (the impugned order). For income-tax assessment year 2012-13 11. 1. The intangible assets (BSE card) of Rs 75,00,000 which ought to have been written off in the accounts for the year ended 315 March, 2008, when ... total income at Rs 2,29,88,190 after making an addition of Rs 75,00,000 in respect of write-off of intangible assets (BSE card) which is debited to the profit and loss account. 11. 4. 2nd reopening for assessment year 2012-13 The Assessing Officer once again

ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad vs. Mylan Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad

In the result. appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 708/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: [Through Hybrid Hearing]For Respondent: MS. M. Narmada, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 92C

alternative, submitted that, ‘Cash PLI’ may be adopted. The appellant’s ratio of tangible fixed assets, to the intangible fixed assets is 35 : 73. Intangible assets has substantial portion of the appellant company’s non-current asset. As such, high proportion of intangible asset is not present ... 708/Hyd./2022 depreciation on ‘Goodwill’ and debited to P & L A/c under normal provisions of the Act on the ground that goodwill is an intangible asset and used in the business of the appellant company. It was the argument of the Learned Counsel for the Assessee that, goodwill

Mylan Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result. appeal of the Assessee is partly

ITA 663/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA Padamchand KhinchaFor Respondent: MS. M. Narmada, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 92C

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 1 1, Chennai vs. Hitachi Solutions India Private Limited, Kanchipuram

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

ITA 1715/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND\nSHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nआयकर अपीलसं./IT(TP)A No.: 17/CHNY/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19\nHitachi Solutions India Private\nLimited,\nBlock 5, 10th Floor, 1/124,\nDLF IT Park, Shivaji Gardens,\nMount Poonamallee Road,\nChennai - 600 089.\nThe Deputy Commissioner of\nIncome Tax,\nVs. Corporate Circle- 1(1),\nNo.121, M.G.Road,\nChennai - 600 034.\n[PAN:AAACZ-1544-R]\n(अपीलार्थी/Appellant)\n(प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)\nआयकर

For Appellant: Shri Darpan Kirpalani, Advocate by VirtualFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, C.I.T

Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 153(4)

expense that takes into account the estimated useful life of plant and equipment. Amortization works in the same way but pertains to intangible assets such as goodwill, patents and copy rights. (Page 397 of factual PB) 14. The assessee has claimed amortization of goodwill as a deduction for the purpose ... regard to impugned dispute are that the assessee has derived goodwill on account of acquisition of certain undertakings and same has been treated as intangible assets, as defined u/s.32(1) of the Act, and claimed depreciation. However, for the purpose of computing operating margin of the assessee, to test

Genpact Services Llc, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Taxation 1(3)(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 788/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2019-20]

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

towards acquisition of customer contracts and assembled workforce, was in the nature of capital expenditure and hence the same should have been capitalised as intangible assets by the Assessee. Accordingly, the sum of INR 22,16,00,276 was added back to the returned income of the Assessee ... total sum of INR 22,16,00,276, only INR 16,05,41,276 was to be considered as the value of intangible assets for allowing depreciation at the rate of 25%. This Tribunal vide its order dated January 31, 2023, in ITA No.2524/Del/2016 in assessee’s own case

ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Acuity Knowledge Centre (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2110/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Respondent: Ms. Tanmayee Rajkumar

Section 92C

services, segmental details are not available; (iii) revenue recognition is different; (iv) the company has faced inorganic growth; and (iv) the company owns significant intangible assets. The CIT(A) rightly accepted the contention of the Assessee, and rightly relied on the decisions of this Hon'ble Tribunal in Amba Research ... there would be a peculiar economic circumstances when compared with the assessee company. We have also considered the fact that the company owns significant intangible assets. We have also gone through the annual report of the said company in which the annual turnover of the said company

Arvind Fashions Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The PCIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 913/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

PCIT noticed from the column 18 of Tax Audit Report for the year under consideration that the assessee has shown opening WDV of intangible assets of Rs. 18,60,92,470/- and claimed depreciation of Rs. 4,65,23,118/- for AY 2018-19. It is to be noted that ... company incorporated by amalgamation of companies on 05.01.2016. During FY 2016-17 the intangible assets has been introduced in books of account being the brand value, however, mode of acquisition of the brand values has not been disclosed. Thus the aforementioned intangible asset so introduced was none other than transfer

Isc Speciality Chemicals LLP, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 457/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 45Section 47Section 47A(4)Section 48Section 50BSection 56

business activity was carried out till the date of conversion. For the purpose of manufacturing of specialty chemicals, the company acquired tangible assets intangible assets and some asset development was under Capital work in progress and the same were backed by the loans from directors and share capital. 2.1.Assessee submitted ... purpose of withdrawing of the exemption of the amount of profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset or intangible assets or share or shares, which had not been charged to tax under section 45 by virtue of conditions laid down in the proviso

ACIT-8(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance Retail Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the revenue is dismissed and cross objection by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4251/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, Advocate, Shri NimeshFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

justified in treating the Capital expenditure incurred by the assessee company as Revenue expenditure although the assessee has incurred the expenses of an intangible asset under development and the same is developed for the enduring benefit of the business of the assessee company?.” 2.1. Grounds taken by the assessee ... name, Ajio.com. In its books of accounts, which were prepared as per provisions of the Companies Act, 2013, assessee treated the same as ‘intangible assets under development’ and capitalized the same in the books of accounts in compliance with the Accounting Standards