“intangible assets”

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax OSD in Situ Circle 131, Mumbai vs. Tata Capital Housing Finance Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

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 knowhow, patents, trademarks, licenses. Section 33 allows development rebate on machinery, plants and ships. • Section 34 states conditions for depreciation and development rebate

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax OSD in Situ Circle 131, Mumbai vs. Tata Capital Housing Finance Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

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 knowhow, patents, trademarks, licenses. Section 33 allows development rebate on machinery, plants and ships. • Section 34 states conditions for depreciation and development rebate

Here Solutions India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 10 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

products. The learned authorized representative also referred to various products of that company. Further, in the annual report it has made addition to its intangible assets, which were developed internally to show that it is developing products also. It was further contended that segmental details between product development and software

Varian Medical Systems International (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner /Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

without evaluating the functional comparability of the said companies. Further the Ld. AO/TPO erred in accepting companies which are functionally non- comparable, having significant intangible assets, earns abnormal margins, unavailability of segmental data and extraordinary events. 2.4 Without prejudice to the above, the Hon'ble DRP panel erred

Varian Medical Systems International (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

without evaluating the functional comparability of the said companies. Further the Ld. AO/TPO erred in accepting companies which are functionally non- comparable, having significant intangible assets, earns abnormal margins, unavailability of segmental data and extraordinary events. 2.4 Without prejudice to the above, the Hon'ble DRP panel erred

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-5(4), Mumbai vs. Wadhwagroup Holdings Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and that of the

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

appellant titled as "Depreciation and Amortisation Expense" contains the following 3 items:- Particulars Amount Rs. Lakhs Depreciation on tangible assets 35.88 Amortisation on intangible assets 7.80 Amortisation on right of use assets 569.82 Total 613.50 11. 6. In Schedule 33 to Financial Statements of the appellant titled as "Segment Reporting

Wadhwagroup Holdings Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle 5(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and that of the

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

appellant titled as “Depreciation and Amortisation Expense" contains the following 3 items:- Particulars Amount Rs. Lakhs Depreciation on tangible assets 35.88 Amortisation on intangible assets 7.80 Amortisation on right of use assets 569.82 Total 613.50 11. 6. In Schedule 33 to Financial Statements of the appellant titled as “Segment Reporting

Red Hat India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Aadl/Jt/Dy/ACIT/ITO, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

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 be excluded

Dy.CIT, Circle -7(1) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. National Stopck Exchange of India Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

treated expenses towards purchase of these software as capital in nature and allowed depreciation at the rate of 25% as applicable to intangible assets. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), he found that these expenditures relate to subscription and renewal charges only. He thus, accepted the contention

National Stock Exchange of India Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

treated expenses towards purchase of these software as capital in nature and allowed depreciation at the rate of 25% as applicable to intangible assets. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), he found that these expenditures relate to subscription and renewal charges only. He thus, accepted the contention