“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

National Stock Exchange of India Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax -Circle 7(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1092/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Respondent: Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr. Advocate

Section 14A

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. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax -Circle 7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1091/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr. Advocate and Shri Harsh KapadiaFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT DR and Ms Monika H. Pande, Sr.AR

Section 1Section 14A

National Stock Exchange of India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT -Circle 7(1) (1), Mumbai

ITA 1090/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

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

Section 14A

National Stock Exchange of India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -Circle 7(1) (1), Mumbai

ITA 1089/MUM/2022[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2006-07

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

For Respondent: Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr. Advocate

Section 14A

Cheers Interactive (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-6(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6798/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 37(1)Section 56(2)(viib)

vide assessment order dated 26.12.2016 under Section 143(3) of the Act, has made the following additions: i) Rs.1,87,89,855/- Depreciation on intangible assets. ii) Rs.97,80,000/-- Foreign Exchange Fluctuation Loss iii) Rs.48,834/- Premium on ESOP iv) (-) Rs.2,79,10,732 - Set off and carry forward ... justice. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in disallowing depreciation on intangible assets amounting to Rs.1,87,89,855/-. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of Ld.AO

Mahadhan Agritech Limited (Formerly Known As Smartechem Technologies Ltd ), Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai

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

ITA 2226/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mahadhan Agritech Ltd. (Formerly Cit(A)-50, Dcit Cen. 8(1), Known As Smartchem Technologies 656, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ltd.), Mumbai-400021. Survey No. 93, Sai Hira, Mundhwa, Pune-411036. Pan No. Aacca 5046 P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: 28/11/2024

Section 132Section 153ASection 69A

other denial of the claim of depreciation on goodwill and / or other denial of the claim of depreciation on goodwill and / or other intangible assets while computing total income under the normal intangible assets while computing total income under the normal intangible assets while computing total income under the normal ... erred in confirming addition of depreciation on goodwill and/or other addition of depreciation on goodwill and/or other addition of depreciation on goodwill and/or other intangible assets while computing book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. assets while computing book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. assets while computing book profit

ITO, Ward 4 vs. Flora Exports

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1226/DEL/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2025AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

wherein the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee and upheld that the assessee was entitled for depreciation as admissible on intangible assets. 3.1 The Ld. CIT(A), in view of the above order of the Tribunal wherein the Tribunal had allowed the quantum appeal of the assessee as stated ... view of the above-mentioned binding precedent, we are of the considered view that the assessee is entitled for depreciation as admissible on intangible assets. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. As the underlying addition has been deleted by the Hon'ble ITAT in ITA No. 1297/Del/2019

Gateway Office Parks Priovate Limitedi, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Cicle-6(1), Chennai

ITA 617/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.617/Chny/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2015-16 Gateway Office Parks Private Limited, Block No.A6, Ground Floor, No.16, Gst Road, Perungalathur, Chennai-600 063. [Pan: Aajcs8198P] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-6(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri S.Ananthan, Advocate (Virtual). Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit 22.01.2025 19.02.2025 आदेश / Order Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Bearing Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/M/250/2022-23/1050825008(1) Dated 16.03.2023 For The Assessment Years 2015-16. Through The Aforesaid Appeal The Assesse Has Challenged Order U/S 250 Dated 16.03.2023 Passed By Cit(A), Chennai. 2.0 Ground Of Appeal No.1 Has Been Found To Be General In Nature & Hence Not Worthy Of Any Meritorious Adjudication.

Section 250Section 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, licenses, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, whichever is higher

ACIT 6(3), Mumbai vs. Grasim Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 6307/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri N.K. Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT(DR)

assets" means a group of assets falling within a class of assets comprising— (a) tangible assets, being buildings, machinery, plant or furniture; (b) intangible assets, being know-how, patents, copyrights, trade-marks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, in respect of which the same ... furniture, being tangible assets; (ii) know-how, patents, copyrights, trade marks, 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, owned, wholly or partly, by the assessee and used for the purposes

Grasim Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 5925/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri N.K. Billaiya, Am

Johnson and Johnson Private Limited (As Successor of Nr Jet Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. CIT(Appeals) NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 1756/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Barate, Sr. DR

Section 112Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 234CSection 234DSection 250Section 50

section 50 of the Act cannot be invoked in the present case since the said trademarks did not form part of the block of intangible assets and therefore, the Appellant has never claimed depreciation thereon; 4. without prejudice to the above, should the provisions of section ... apply to the aforementioned trademarks as the assessee acquired the same before 01/04/1998, i.e. before the provision in respect of depreciation on intangible assets was introduced. Accordingly, the assessee submitted that capital gains arising from the sale of the aforementioned trademarks do not attract the provisions of section

DCIT., Circle 8(1), Hyderabad vs. East India Petroleum Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1087/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narsimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1087/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. East India Petroleum Income Tax Limited Circle-8(1)(Incharge) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaace4494K] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri H.Srinivasulu, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms.M.Narmada, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/01/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 06/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 19.08.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2018-19. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, Engaged In The Business Of Providing Terminalling Services To Oil Marketing Companies For Storage Of Bulk Liquid Products Including Fuels Like High Speed Diesel, Motor Spirit, Petroleum

For Appellant: Shri H.Srinivasulu, ARFor Respondent: Ms.M.Narmada, CIT-DR

Section 32

East India Petroleum Limited assessee company w.e.f. 01.04.2017, by an order of NCLT dated 11.01.2019. This amalgamation has led to creation of artificial intangible asset in the form of goodwill of Rs.88,21,86,061/-, on which depreciation @25% amounting to Rs.22,05,65,250/- has been claimed. The Assessing ... East India Petroleum Limited (SC) and argued that depreciation arising on account of amalgamation is in the nature of an intangible asset and the same is eligible for depreciation u/s 32 of the Act. The assessee had also challenged the disallowance of interest expenditure

L & T Technologies Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the additional grounds of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4255/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeel&T Technologies Services Ltd Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income L&T House, N.M. Marg, Tax, Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai Room No.545, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Mumbai Pan: Aaccl4310P Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash (CIT- DR)

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 170Section 2Section 250Section 37Section 90

relevant extract of which is enclosed, in Annexure 7, Page 63 to 64. The Ld. AR stated that acquired goodwill is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation u/s 32(1) of the Act. This issue stands settled in the context of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in case ... Amalgamating Company was enjoying in order to retain its existing clientele. 3.……………. 4. Explanation 3 states that the expression 'asset' shall mean an intangible asset, being know- how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature. A reading the words 'any other business

Olive Tree Trading Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. ITO, Circle 2, Pune

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 899/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Narendra JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 40Section 69C

quashed. 3. The Ld CIT has erred in confirming the order of Ld AO considering the advertisement and brand promotional expenses capitalised under head intangible asset amounting to Rs. 5,26,56,277 as unexplained investment under section 69C of the IT Act and thereby erred in disallowing depreciation amounting ... limited scrutiny under the E- assessment Scheme, 2019 on the following issues :-(i) Default in TDS & Disallowance for such Default; (ii) Investment in Intangible Assets; (iii) Lower amount disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) in ITR in comparison to Audit Report; (iv) Introduction of high value intangible asset during the year

M/S N.A.M. Expressway Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 580/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.580/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) N.A.M.Expressway Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle-5(1) Delhi Hyderabad [Pan : Aadcn3131D] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms Ananya Kapoor & Shri Tarun Chanana, Ar (Through Virtual Mode) रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Shiva Sewak, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 30/10/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 28/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.03.2019 Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Ld.Pcit], Hyderabad-4 Pertaining To A.Y.2018-19 On The Following Grounds :

For Appellant: Shri Salil KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Sewak, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 43B

towards amortization in the A.Y.2017-18 u/s 37(1) of the Act, the same has cascading effect on the closing block of intangible assets and subsequent amortization allowable for future assessment years, resulted in excess claim of WDV of intangible assets of Rs.10,79,53,813/-. This point has not been ... only Rs.73.93 crores. Since the company claimed and was allowed excess amortization and the cascading effect resulted in excess claim of WDV of intangible assets of Rs.11.41 crores for the year under consideration. 10 M/s N.A.M.Expressway Limited Therefore, the Ld.PCIT opined that failure to verify the issues in right perspective

International Hospital Ltd. (Before Amalgamation M/S Escorts Hospital and Research Centre Ltd), New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-8(3), New Delhi

The appeals are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 3390/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Ircon Soma Tollway (P) Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Ltd., B-4/45, Ground Floor, Income Tax, Range-4, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aabci4622C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri VK Aggarwal, AR & Shri HritikFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250(6)Section 263

PCIT vide order dated 29.03.2017 set aside the assessment order dated 12.11.2014 and directed Ld. AO to disallow the depreciation claimed by assessee on intangible assets and directed to reduce negative grant of Rs.595/- crores from the cost of the assets for assessment year 2012-13. 5. Similarly ... PCIT(A) vide order dated 29.03.2017 set aside assessment order dated 27.11.2015 and directed Ld. AO to disallow the depreciation claimed by assessee on intangible assets and directed to reduce negative grant of Rs.595/- crores from the cost of asset for assessment year 2013-14. ITA Nos.1197 & 1198/Del/2018

Cambridge Technology Enterprises Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 536/HYD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.536/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S Cambridge Technology Vs. Dcit Enterprises Limited Circle-1(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Aaacu3358G] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Shiva Sewak, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/10/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 24/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.03.2019 Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Ld.Pcit], Hyderabad Pertaining To A.Y.2012-13. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company, Engaged In The Business Of Rendering Software Services, Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y.2012-13 On 26.09.2012, Admitting Total Income Of Rs.4,05,55,380/- Under Normal Provisions Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) & Rs.1,47,09173/-

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Sewak, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

reusable components developed earlier became almost obsolete and therefore, it has been decided to write off the same. The impairment loss pertains to intangible assets shown in the depreciation schedule has to be treated as capital loss and cannot be allowed as deduction u/s 37(1) of the Act. Further

T vs. Motor Company Ltd., Chennaivs.ACIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee ppeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 672/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.672/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S.Tvs Motor Co. Ltd., V. The Acit, No.29, Haddows Road, Corporate Circle – 3(1), Chennai-600 006. Chennai. [Pan: Aaacs 7032 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT

Section 143(3)

intangible property [w.r.e.f. 01.04.2002). This includes marketing expression intangible property [w.r.e.f. 01.04.2002). This includes marketing expression intangible property [w.r.e.f. 01.04.2002). This includes marketing related intangible assets, such as, trademarks, trade names, brand names, intangible assets, such as, trademarks, trade names, brand names, intangible assets, such as, trademarks, trade names, brand ... names, logos; customer related intangible assets, such as, customer lists, customer logos; customer related intangible assets, such as, customer lists, customer logos; customer related intangible assets, such as, customer lists, customer contracts, customer relationship, open purchase orders; human capital related contracts, customer relationship, open purchase orders; human capital related contracts

Cheers Interactive (India) Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2418/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval Shah, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 43A

Summarily dismissing the appeal petition filed by the appellant without mentioning proper reasons and justification; (b) not holding that the appellant acquired the "intangible asset from EADS France SAS in terms of agreement dated 28 July 2011: (c) stating that mere signing of the legal document i.e. "Agreement for services ... related to Support of Licensing activity" would not make it as acquiring any rights or business or commercial rights of similar nature Le. intangible assets eligible for depreciation. (d) not granting depreciation amounting to Rs. 3,14,71,750/- in respect of the said intangible assets as claimed

ACIT 13-2-2, Mumbai vs. Sharda Cropchem Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the above appeals of the Revenue for

ITA 6163/MUM/2024[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Deshpande / Ms. ShikhaUpadhayay,ARsFor Respondent: Ms. NeenaJeph,CIT(DR)

Section 135Section 143(3)Section 37Section 80G

incurred on account of Product Registration Expenses was added to the total income of the assessee. However, he allowed depreciation on this expenditure, being Intangible Assets. 4. In the subsequent appeal, the ld. CIT(A) observed the AO has merely followed earlier year's order without deliberating on the issue