← 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Sify Technologies Limited, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1458/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1458, 1950 & 2889/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2020-21, 2017-18 & 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Sify Technologies Limited, Income Tax/Acit, Ii Floor, Tidel Park No. 4, Ttt1 Large Taxpayer Unit Circle 1, Taramani S.O., Taramani, Chennai. Chennai 600 113. [Pan:Aaacs9032R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 19.02.2024, 07.08.2023 & 08.08.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2020-21, 2017-18 & 2012-13. 2. Since Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed

For Appellant: Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, CITFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate

computers in the fixed asset schedule submitted by the assessee for income tax purpose 10 I.T.A. Nos.1458, 1950 & 2889/Chny/24 contains ‘system software’, which are intangible assets, eligible for depreciation @ 25%. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer show-caused the assessee along with draft assessment order (DAO) to explain ... page 48 of the assessment order. After considering the explanation of the assessee, the Assessing Officer observed that the depreciation on ‘system software’, being intangible assets, is to be allowed only 25% and accordingly, disallowed the excess depreciation claimed by the assessee of ₹.6,09,41,666/- and added

Marico Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir-35, Mumbai

ITA 7044/MUM/2008[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2025AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 115JSection 80HSection 80I

Sonic Biochem towards non-compete fee. The assessee in the books of accounts capitalized the said amount as intangible asset and claimed deprecation on the same @ 25%. The AO while completing the assessment for AY 2003-04 held that the amount paid towards non-compete fees cannot be treated ... intangible asset and therefore depreciation cannot be allowed under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. However, the AO allowed 5% of the expenses to be claimed as a deduction considering the fact that the agreement is entered for a period of 20 years. For the year under consideration

M/S. Marico Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT Cen Cir-35, Mumbai

ITA 3533/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2025AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 115JSection 80HSection 80I

Sonic Biochem towards non-compete fee. The assessee in the books of accounts capitalized the said amount as intangible asset and claimed deprecation on the same @ 25%. The AO while completing the assessment for AY 2003-04 held that the amount paid towards non-compete fees cannot be treated ... intangible asset and therefore depreciation cannot be allowed under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. However, the AO allowed 5% of the expenses to be claimed as a deduction considering the fact that the agreement is entered for a period of 20 years. For the year under consideration

The ACIT CC-35, Mumbai vs. M/S. Marico Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3152/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2025AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 115JSection 80HSection 80I

Sonic Biochem towards non-compete fee. The assessee in the books of accounts capitalized the said amount as intangible asset and claimed deprecation on the same @ 25%. The AO while completing the assessment for AY 2003-04 held that the amount paid towards non-compete fees cannot be treated ... intangible asset and therefore depreciation cannot be allowed under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. However, the AO allowed 5% of the expenses to be claimed as a deduction considering the fact that the agreement is entered for a period of 20 years. For the year under consideration

Kuber Planters Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-14(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 882/DEL/2023[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareekkuber Planters Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 14 (2), C/O Raj Kumar & Associates, New Delhi. L-7A (Lgf), South Extension Part Ii, New Delhi – 110 049. (Pan : Aacck8875E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, Ca Shri Suraj Gupta, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.01.2025 Date Of Order : 09.04.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (For Short ‘Ld. Cit(A)’) Dated 16.03.2023 For Assessment Year 1997-98 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That Under The Facts & Circumstances Both The Lower Authorities Erred In Law As Well As On Merits In Make & Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.34,71,33,750/- Being The Subscription Received During The Year From Members Of Tree Plantation Scheme Namely “Kuber Dhanvarsha”.

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

Short Term Provisions 11 - - - Total Equity & Liabilities 6,010.37 6127.95 3621.96 ASSETS (1) Non-Current Assets (a) Property, plant & equipment and 12 Intangible assets (i) Property, plant & equipment 1,999.72 2096.46 672.20 (ii) Capital work-in-progress - - - (iii)Intangible assets - - - (b) Deferred Tax Assets (net) 12B - - - (c) Long Term Loans

M/S Accord Mediplus Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Pune

ITA 17/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. Phadke and Shri Piyush BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay
Section 1Section 147Section 56(2)

Appeal has erred in law and on facts, in not referring the matter of valuation of shares on the basis of tangible / intangible assets of the Appellant Company through the office of Departmental Valuation Officer u/s 55A of ITA, 1961 and has further erred in assigning incorrect reasoning while dismissing ... provisions of Sec. 56(2)(viib) of the Act, 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. Again summarizing the various issues

M/S Accord Mediplus Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Pune

ITA 16/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.13 To 17/Pun/2024

Section 1Section 147Section 56(2)

Appeal has erred in law and on facts, in not referring the matter of valuation of shares on the basis of tangible / intangible assets of the Appellant Company through the office of Departmental Valuation Officer u/s 55A of ITA, 1961 and has further erred in assigning incorrect reasoning while dismissing ... provisions of Sec. 56(2)(viib) of the Act, 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. Again summarizing the various issues

M/S Accord Mediplus Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Pune

ITA 15/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. Phadke and Shri Piyush BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay
Section 1Section 147Section 56(2)

Appeal has erred in law and on facts, in not referring the matter of valuation of shares on the basis of tangible / intangible assets of the Appellant Company through the office of Departmental Valuation Officer u/s 55A of ITA, 1961 and has further erred in assigning incorrect reasoning while dismissing ... provisions of Sec. 56(2)(viib) of the Act, 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. Again summarizing the various issues

M/S Accord Mediplus Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Pune

ITA 14/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. Phadke and Shri Piyush BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay
Section 1Section 147Section 56(2)

Appeal has erred in law and on facts, in not referring the matter of valuation of shares on the basis of tangible / intangible assets of the Appellant Company through the office of Departmental Valuation Officer u/s 55A of ITA, 1961 and has further erred in assigning incorrect reasoning while dismissing ... provisions of Sec. 56(2)(viib) of the Act, 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. Again summarizing the various issues

M/S Accord Mediplus Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Pune

ITA 13/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. Phadke and Shri Piyush BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay
Section 1Section 147Section 56(2)

Appeal has erred in law and on facts, in not referring the matter of valuation of shares on the basis of tangible / intangible assets of the Appellant Company through the office of Departmental Valuation Officer u/s 55A of ITA, 1961 and has further erred in assigning incorrect reasoning while dismissing ... provisions of Sec. 56(2)(viib) of the Act, 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. Again summarizing the various issues

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur vs. Deepak Suresh Gadge, Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 99/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri K.M. Roy, Hon’Ble Accountant, Member

Section 132Section 153Section 69C

generic statement and a naive approach adopted by the Assessing Officer because he has failed to point out as to how this particular intangible assets are applicable in the case of Orange City Housing Finance Ltd. It is also beyond comprehension as to when he has accepted the purchase

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur vs. Deepak Suresh Gadge, Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 100/NAG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri K.M. Roy, Hon’Ble Accountant, Member

Section 132Section 153Section 69C

generic statement and a naive approach adopted by the Assessing Officer because he has failed to point out as to how this particular intangible assets are applicable in the case of Orange City Housing Finance Ltd. It is also beyond comprehension as to when he has accepted the purchase

Indiabulls Commercial Credit Limited, New Delhi vs. PCIT (Central), Mumbai-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2844/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2025AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 94(7)

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 ... conducting enquiry with Page | 22 ITA No. 2844/Mum/2024 Α.Υ. 2019-20 Indiabulls Commercial Credit Limited 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

Knauf India Pvt Ltd (Earlier Know As Usg Boral Building Products (India) Pvt Ltd), Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-14(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 2061/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jhadav, CIT DR
Section 144Section 37Section 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

method, the reseller of goods is compensated for the costs incurred and an appropriate profit is provided for functions performed, tangible and intangible assets employed, and risks borne. RPM takes the price at which a product/service is resold to an independent third party and reduces the resale price

Knauf India Pvt Ltd (Earlier Know As Usg Boral Building Products (India) Pvt Ltd), Haryana vs. ITO, Ward 14 (3), New Delhi

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

ITA 2060/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jhadav, CIT DR
Section 144Section 37Section 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

method, the reseller of goods is compensated for the costs incurred and an appropriate profit is provided for functions performed, tangible and intangible assets employed, and risks borne. RPM takes the price at which a product/service is resold to an independent third party and reduces the resale price

Strides Pharma Science Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 15(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5721/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.5721/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2020-21) Strides Pharma Science Limited V/S. Ito 15(3)(2), बनाम Aayakar Bhavan, New 201, Devavrata, Sector-17, Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020 Vashi, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra-400703 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Blrs03808A .. Appellant/अपीलार्थी Respondent/प्रतिवादी निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Nishit Gandhi राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Mr. R. A. Dhyani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 16.01.2025 20.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / Order Per Renu Jauhri [A.M.] :- This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Mumbai/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Dated 06.09.2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Act”] For

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Mr. R. A. Dhyani
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 14ASection 250Section 35Section 37(1)

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. NCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNA Page | 21 ITA No. 5721/Mum/2024 Α.Υ. 2020-21 Strides Pharma Science Limited Section

Deputy Commissioner of Incometax, Chennai vs. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 1489/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr. Sandeep BagmarFor Respondent: Mr. Nilay
Section 115J

depreciation on computer software @ 60% by including it in the block of computers. However, the AO included the Software license in the block of “Intangible Assets” rather than “Computer” for the purpose of computing depreciation as per the Act and restricted the depreciation @ 25%, on the reason that the assessee ... shown the same as intangible assets and consequently, disallowed Rs.77,70,000/-. 37. Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee explained that it had classified the computer software as intangible assets, only for the purposes of disclosure in the books of accounts in accordance with the mandatory Accounting Standard 26. However

Deputy Commissioner of Incometax, Chennai vs. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai

ITA 1488/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1279/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Cholamandalam Ms General- V. The Dcit, Insurance Co. Ltd., Non Corporate Circle-8, Dare House, 2Nd Floor, Chennai. No.2, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai-600 001. [Pan: Aabcc 6633 K] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1338/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Dcit, Non Corporate Circle-8, Chennai. V. M/S. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd., Dare House, 2Nd Floor, No.2, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai-600 001. [Pan: Aabcc 6633 K] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1280/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Cholamandalam Ms General- Insurance Co. Ltd., Dare House, 2Nd Floor, No.2, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai-600 001. [Pan: Aabcc 6633 K] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Non Corporate Circle-8, Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 115J

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'ए' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH: CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Non Corp Circle 8, Chennai

ITA 1281/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1279/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Cholamandalam Ms General- V. The Dcit, Insurance Co. Ltd., Non Corporate Circle-8, Dare House, 2Nd Floor, Chennai. No.2, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai-600 001. [Pan: Aabcc 6633 K] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1338/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Dcit, Non Corporate Circle-8, Chennai. V. M/S. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd., Dare House, 2Nd Floor, No.2, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai-600 001. [Pan: Aabcc 6633 K] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1280/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Cholamandalam Ms General- Insurance Co. Ltd., Dare House, 2Nd Floor, No.2, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai-600 001. [Pan: Aabcc 6633 K] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Non Corporate Circle-8, Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 115J

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'ए' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH: CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Non Corp Circle 8, Chennai

ITA 1280/CHNY/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr. Sandeep Bagmar
Section 115Section 115J

depreciation on computer software @ 60% by including it in the block of computers. However, the AO included the Software license in the block of “Intangible Assets” rather than “Computer” for the purpose of computing depreciation as per the Act and restricted the depreciation @ 25%, on the reason that the assessee ... shown the same as intangible assets and consequently, disallowed Rs.77,70,000/-. 37. Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee explained that it had classified the computer software as intangible assets, only for the purposes of disclosure in the books of accounts in accordance with the mandatory Accounting Standard 26. However