“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

Messe Frankfurt Trade Fairs India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6498/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 6498/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 2. Ita No. 6680/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Messe Frankfurt Trade Dcit – 2(2)(1), Fairs India Private Income Tax Limited, Vs. Department, 501, 5Th Floor, Gala Mumbai-400 020 Impecca, Mumbai, Chakala Midc S.O, Mumbai-400 093. Pan/Gir No. Aabcm0696G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ninad Patade, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(5)Section 270ASection 80G

Director. In the affidavit, it is stated that after the learned CIT(A) partly allowed relief by deleting the disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets and sustained only the disallowance of deduction under section 80G of Rs. 9,90,000/-, the assessee, considering the quantum of tax involved and with

S S I Media India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncc-20(1), Chennai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2346/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2346/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# /Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. V.Balaji, C.A ()For Respondent: Mr. Saujanya Ranjan, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 32

fact that the structures are either: Temporary structures eligible for 100% depreciation under Income Tax Rules, or Commercial rights eligible for 25% depreciation as intangible assets under Section 32. 3.2 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the classification of the structures as "buildings" without appreciating their functional use, nature

M/S Stance Consumer Electronics Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-32, Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 in ITA No

ITA 2792/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalita Nos.2791 & 2792/Del/2025 (Assessment Yearss 2016-17 & 2017-18)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

M/S Stance Consumer Electronics Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-32, Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 in ITA No

ITA 2791/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalita Nos.2791 & 2792/Del/2025 (Assessment Yearss 2016-17 & 2017-18)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

Bandekar Brothers Private Limited, Vasco-Da-Gama, Goa vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji, Goa

The appeal of the assessee is PARTLY ALLOWED in aforestated terms

ITA 38/PAN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2013-14 Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Post Box No. 11, Suvarna Bandekar Bldg., Swatantra Path, Vasco-Da-Gama Goa-403802 Pan: Aaacb5502B . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: Mr Pramod & Mr Shriniwas Deshpande [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By: Mr M Satish & Mr Renga Rajan [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 12/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/02/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Assessee’S Appeal Filed U/S 253(1) Of The Income-

For Appellant: Mr Pramod & Mr Shriniwas Deshpande [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish & Mr Renga Rajan [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(14)Section 246ASection 250Section 253(1)Section 37(1)

depreciation (if any) thereon. Appreciating the sincere submission of the Revenue, the Ld. Jr Deshpande propped for higher depreciation by categorising it into an intangible asset within clause (b) of section 2(11) of the Act. 10. We have heard the rival party’s submission & arguments, subject to rule ... section 2(11) of the Act which defines the term 'block of assets' means a fixed assets classified into (a) tangible and (b) intangible assets. The intangible assets are know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature. Perhaps as a safeguard

Diabetomics Medical Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee

ITA 2149/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: CA MV Prasad AndFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR

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, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, whichever is higher; “specified fund” means ... 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, licenses, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, whichever is higher, [(aa) "specified fund

Diabetomics Medical Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee

ITA 2148/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: CA MV Prasad AndFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR

Section 56(2)(viib)

Diabetomics Medical Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee

ITA 2147/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: CA MV Prasad AndFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR

Section 56(2)(viib)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(2), New Delhi, I.P.Estate vs. Beacon Higher Education Services Private Limited, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi

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

ITA 2574/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar, Hon’Ble & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Y K Kapur, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 250Section 32Section 72A

grossly erred to confirm the disallowed depreciation of Rs. 2,92,67,578/-claimed u/s 32 (1) (ii) on intangible asset i.e. non-compete fee, as per definition u/s 2 (f) without going into the merit of fact of assesse and upheld the AO's addition based on a judicial ... grossly erred to accept the order of AY 2012-13, passed by his predecessor on the same issue allowing depreciation on intangible asset i.e. non compete fee and acceted that referred judicial order is not applicable to the assessee. 2 | P a g e 1867_DEL_2020_Beacon Higher Education

Beacon Higher Education Services Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-4(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 1867/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar, Hon’Ble & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Y K Kapur, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 250Section 32Section 72A

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Thhyssenkrupp Elevator (India) Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee in ITA 3015/Del/2017 is

ITA 3658/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwaltk Elevator Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner Of (Earlier Known As Income Tax, Circle- 25(1), Thyssenkrupp Elevator C. R. Building, New Delhi (India) Pvt. Ltd.) Plot No. 429, Functional Industrial Estate, Patparganj, Delhi Pan: Aabct6921F Appellant Respondent Assistant Commissioner Of Vs Tk Elevator Private Limited Income Tax, Circle- 25(1), (Earlier Known As Room No. 192A C. R. Thyssenkrupp Elevator Building, New Delhi (India) Pvt. Ltd.) Plot No. 429, Functional Industrial Estate, Patparganj, Delhi Pan: Aabct6921F Appellant Respondent Assessee By Ms. Shashi M. Kapila, Adv& Sh. Sushil Kumar, Adv Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 11/02/2026

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(3)Section 234ASection 92C

addition on account of advance from customers of Rs. 12,00,11,865/- made disallowance of depreciation of intangible assets of Rs. 1,46,65,121/- and also disallowed provision of warranty of Rs. 91,15,153/-. As against the assessment order dated 18/05/2015, Assessee preferred an Appeal before

Thyssenkrupp Elevator (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee in ITA 3015/Del/2017 is

ITA 3015/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(3)Section 234ASection 92C

Trent Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5165/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 2(11)Section 250Section 32Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(ii)

assessee company. 4. The assessee claimed depreciation on goodwill acquired as part of the slump sale and added the same to the block of intangible assets during the year. The Assessing Officer required the assessee to justify the allowability of depreciation on goodwill vide notice issued under section ... assessee stated that out of the total consideration of Rs. 87.82 crores, an amount of Rs. 43.77 crores was allocated to tangible and identified intangible assets and the balance amount of Rs. 44.02 crores was allocated to goodwill purchased. 6. The assessee also referred to the provisions of section

Ambuja Cements Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai-3, Mumbai

ITA 3474/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Sourabh Soparkar, AR (virtually appear)For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

application of mind by the AO. The Ld.PCIT also observed that the AO did not discuss anything about the claim of depreciation on the intangible assets in the impugned assessment orders. Accordingly, he held that, the impugned assessment orders are rendered erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue ... restored them to the file of the AO for the limited purpose of conducting enquiry with regard to the claim of depreciation of intangible assets and taking decision as per law. The assessee is aggrieved by the revision orders so passed by the Ld.PCIT in both the years under consideration

K V Tex Firm, Chennai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

Appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 1865/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 147Section 44A

light tangible evidence of undisclosed income in the form of undisclosed assets, investments, cash, bullion, jewellery, or other valuables, or in some cases, intangible assets such as unrecorded receivables or unexplained expenditure. 72. When a search of this nature is conducted, the entire financial affairs of the assessee stand open

K V Tex Firm, Chennai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 1860/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 147Section 44A

K V Tex Firm, Chennai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

Appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 1859/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 147Section 44A

The India Cements Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1708/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 148

accordance with the Indian Accounting Standards 109 adjusted on the convergence date; (D) adjustments relating to items of property, plant and equipment and intangible assets recorded at fair value as deemed cost in accordance with paragraphs D5 and D7 of the Indian Accounting Standards 101 on the convergence date

Edgeverve Systems Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 294/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

different assessee. 10. However, the AO rejected the assessee's explanation. The AO found that the license soft-wares are classified as an intangible asset as per Appendix-1 of IT Rules and as per part-B of the appendix-1, the same is eligible to depreciate ... also referred to Accounting Standard 26-Intangible Assets which describes that software which is not an integral part of related hardware is to be treated as intangible assets. The AO also referred the decision of ITAT in the case of M/s Pentamedia Graphics Ltd. Accordingly, the AO treated the purchase

Edgeverve Systems Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 293/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

different assessee. 10. However, the AO rejected the assessee’s explanation. The AO found that the license soft-wares are classified as an intangible asset as per Appendix-1 of IT Rules and as per part-B of the appendix-1, the same is eligible to depreciate ... also referred to Accounting Standard 26-Intangible Assets which describes that software which is not an integral part of related hardware is to be treated as intangible assets. The AO also referred the decision of ITAT in the case ITA Nos.290 - 294/Bang/2025 Page 5 of 53 of M/s Pentamedia Graphics