← 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

Rochem Separation Systems India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax PCIT, Mumbai - 6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2846/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am Rochem Separation Systems India Principal Commissioner Of Income Private Limited Tax, Mumbai-400 006 101 Hdil Tower, Anant Kanekar Marg, Vs. Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav BansalFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43B

company M/s CBTL and the assessee company for AY 2017-18 showing the liability and assets as on 31.03.2017. 3. The depreciation claimed on intangible assets @ 25% of Rs. 38705844/- on goodwill on merger is proposed to be disallowed as you have failed produced any evidentiary documents in support ... ASSETS Non-current assets Fixed Assets Tangible assets 2,28,57,050 2,28,57,050 Intangible assets 97,486 97,486 2,29,54.536 2,29,54,536 Assets Non-current 25,000 25,000 Investments Long-term loans and 62,500 62,500 advances Other non-current assets

Holiday Triangle Travel Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 67/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Shivpuri, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

assessee to the satisfaction of the AO based on the value, on the date of issue of shares, of its assets, including intangible assets including goodwill, know how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises or any other business of commercial rights of similar nature. Since in this case ... 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; (b) "venture capital

Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC Bengaluru, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 782/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss Padmavathy S.Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income- 204, Raheja Centre, Free Press Tax,Circle 3(4), Mumbai Journal Marg, Nariman Point World Trade Centre 1, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 005 Pan : Aaace30836F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Shekhar GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 41(2)Section 50

furniture, being tangible assets. (ii) know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, 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, not being goodwill of a business or profession, owned, wholly or partly, by the assessee

Altiux Innovations Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle- 1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1008/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1006 To 1008/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Altiux Innovations (P) Ltd Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax, Circle 1(1) Pan: Aalca9069R Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Sai Sarikonda, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Bala Krishna, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/01/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Sai Sarikonda, CAFor Respondent: : Shri B Bala Krishna, DR
Section 144Section 270ASection 271ASection 32Section 68

business. 4. The Ld CIT (A) erred in disallowing the depreciation amount of Rs. 8,52,48,886 claimed by the appellant on the intangible Assets, without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case; 5. Whether the Ld CIT (A) is justified in disallowing depreciation of an amount being ... Director as well Page 2 of 8 ITA Nos 1006 to 1008 of 2024 Altiux Innovations P Ltd as the disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets. The learned AR has submitted that the assessee has filed the ledger account as well as bank account statement in support of the claim

Altiux Innovations Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1007/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1006 To 1008/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Altiux Innovations (P) Ltd Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax, Circle 1(1) Pan: Aalca9069R Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Sai Sarikonda, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Bala Krishna, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/01/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Sai Sarikonda, CAFor Respondent: : Shri B Bala Krishna, DR
Section 144Section 270ASection 271ASection 32Section 68

business. 4. The Ld CIT (A) erred in disallowing the depreciation amount of Rs. 8,52,48,886 claimed by the appellant on the intangible Assets, without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case; 5. Whether the Ld CIT (A) is justified in disallowing depreciation of an amount being ... Director as well Page 2 of 8 ITA Nos 1006 to 1008 of 2024 Altiux Innovations P Ltd as the disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets. The learned AR has submitted that the assessee has filed the ledger account as well as bank account statement in support of the claim

Altiux Innovations Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1 (1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1006/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1006 To 1008/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Altiux Innovations (P) Ltd Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax, Circle 1(1) Pan: Aalca9069R Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Sai Sarikonda, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Bala Krishna, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/01/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Sai Sarikonda, CAFor Respondent: : Shri B Bala Krishna, DR
Section 144Section 270ASection 271ASection 32Section 68

business. 4. The Ld CIT (A) erred in disallowing the depreciation amount of Rs. 8,52,48,886 claimed by the appellant on the intangible Assets, without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case; 5. Whether the Ld CIT (A) is justified in disallowing depreciation of an amount being ... Director as well Page 2 of 8 ITA Nos 1006 to 1008 of 2024 Altiux Innovations P Ltd as the disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets. The learned AR has submitted that the assessee has filed the ledger account as well as bank account statement in support of the claim

Sundaram Fastners Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-6(1), Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 2501/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2501/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ It(Tp)A No.92/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2021-22) M/S Sundram Fasteners Limited Ito बनाम/ 98-A, 7Th Floor, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai Corporate Ward-6(1) Vs. Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. Chennai "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aaacs-8779-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. Ar अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08-01-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15-01-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 80GSection 92C

land thereby acquiring the right to use leasehold property which is a commercial right obtained by Appellant being in the nature of an intangible asset entitled to depreciation. 1.3 The AO/DRP failed to consider the Karnataka High Court decision in the case of DCIT vs Bangalore International Airport ... leasehold property. The depreciation was claimed @12.5% i.e., half of 25% depreciation. The same was on the ground that the rights were shown as intangible assets which would be eligible for 25% depreciation. The Ld. AO rejected the same and disallowed depreciation of Rs.43.49 Lacs as claimed by the assessee

Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assesse and Revenue are dealt

ITA 93/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklastaal 3H Ita Nos.86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 & 93 /Chny/2018 Frefzor Af /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.Sanjay for Ms V.Pushpa
Section 143(3)Section 148

revenue that the assessee is eligible for claim of depreciation @ 25% on computer software since the license to use software is an intangible asset and that therefore the action of Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous in allowing depreciation @ 60%. For the purposes of this appeal the figures ... Rs.3,25,90,355/- being on account of computer software. The Ld. AO subscribed to the view that a computer software is an intangible asset for which permissible depreciation was @ 25%. The Ld. AO observed that in the present case the assessee company was not the owner of the software

Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assesse and Revenue are dealt as under:-

ITA 92/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 & 93 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Insurance Company Limited, Large Tax Payer Unit, Vishranthi Melaram Towers, Chennai. No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.491, 492, 493, 494, 495 & 496 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Large Tax Payer Unit, Insurance Company Limited, Chennai. Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A.Sanjay For Ms V.Pushpa, Sr.Standing Counsel For It Dept. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2025

For Respondent: Shri A.Sanjay for Ms V.Pushpa
Section 143(3)Section 148

revenue that the assessee is eligible for claim of depreciation @ 25% on computer software since the license to use software is an intangible asset and that therefore the action of Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous in allowing depreciation @ 60%. For the purposes of this appeal the figures ... Rs.3,25,90,355/- being on account of computer software. The Ld. AO subscribed to the view that a computer software is an intangible asset for which permissible depreciation was @ 25%. The Ld. AO observed that in the present case the assessee company was not the owner of the software

Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu, Chennai

ITA 90/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 & 93 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited, Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chennai. आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.491, 492, 493, 494, 495 & 496 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chennai. M/S.Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited, (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By Shri A.Sanjay For Ms V.Pushpa, सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing Sr.Standing Counsel For It Dept. घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 15.10.2024 08.01.2025 Per Bench: आदेश / Order The Following Appeals Have Been Raised By The Appellant Assessee & Appellant Revenue Contesting Assessment / Appellate Orders For Ays 2008-09 To Ay 2014-15. As The Grounds Of Appeal In Respective Appeals Of Assessee & Revenue Are Largely Common, All The Appeals Are Adjudicated Through This Common Orders. S. No. Appeal Nos. Ays Appellate Cit(A) Order Details Revenue A B C D E F 1

Section 143(3)Section 148

revenue that the assessee is eligible for claim of depreciation 25% on computer software since the license to use software is an intangible asset and that therefore the action of Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous in allowing depreciation @ 60%. For the purposes of this appeal the figures ... Rs.3,25,90,355/- being on account of computer software. The Ld. AO subscribed to the view that a computer software is an intangible asset for which permissible depreciation was @ 25%. The Ld. AO observed that in the present case the assessee company was not the owner of the software

Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu, Chennai

ITA 87/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 & 93 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited, Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chennai. आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.491, 492, 493, 494, 495 & 496 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Large Tax Payer Unit, Insurance Company Limited, Chennai. Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A.Sanjay For Ms V.Pushpa, सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : Sr.Standing Counsel For It Dept. 15.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2025 आदेश / Order Per Bench: The Following Appeals Have Been Raised By The Appellant Assessee & Appellant Revenue Contesting Assessment / Appellate Orders For Ays 2008-09 To Ay 2014-15. As The Grounds Of Appeal In Respective Appeals Of Assessee & Revenue Are Largely Common, All The Appeals Are Adjudicated Through This Common Orders. S. No. Appeal Nos. Ays Appellate Cit(A) Order Details Revenue A B C D E F 1 2 3

For Appellant: Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.Sanjay for Ms V.Pushpa
Section 148

revenue that the assessee is eligible for claim of depreciation 25% on computer software since the license to use software is an intangible asset and that therefore the action of Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous in allowing depreciation @ 60%. For the purposes of this appeal the figures ... Rs.3,25,90,355/- being on account of computer software. The Ld. AO subscribed to the view that a computer software is an intangible asset for which permissible depreciation was @ 25%. The Ld. AO observed that in the present case the assessee company was not the owner of the software

Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu, Chennai

ITA 86/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 & 93 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited, Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chennai. आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.491, 492, 493, 494, 495 & 496 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chennai. M/S.Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited, (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By Shri A.Sanjay For Ms V.Pushpa, Sr.Standing Counsel For It Dept. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2025 आदेश / Order Per Bench: The Following Appeals Have Been Raised By The Appellant Assessee & Appellant Revenue Contesting Assessment / Appellate Orders For Ays 2008-09 To Ay 2014-15. As The Grounds Of Appeal In Respective Appeals Of Assessee & Revenue Are Largely Common, All The Appeals Are Adjudicated Through This Common Orders. S. No. Appeal Nos. Ays Appellate Cit(A) Order Details Revenue A B C D E F 1

Section 143(3)Section 148

revenue that the assessee is eligible for claim of depreciation 25% on computer software since the license to use software is an intangible asset and that therefore the action of Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous in allowing depreciation @ 60%. For the purposes of this appeal the figures ... Rs.3,25,90,355/- being on account of computer software. The Ld. AO subscribed to the view that a computer software is an intangible asset for which permissible depreciation was @ 25%. The Ld. AO observed that in the present case the assessee company was not the owner of the software

DCIT Ltu 1, Chennai vs. M/S Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assesse and Revenue are dealt

ITA 496/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklastaal 3H Ita Nos.86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 & 93 /Chny/2018 Frefzor Af /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.Sanjay for Ms V.Pushpa
Section 143(3)Section 148

revenue that the assessee is eligible for claim of depreciation @ 25% on computer software since the license to use software is an intangible asset and that therefore the action of Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous in allowing depreciation @ 60%. For the purposes of this appeal the figures ... Rs.3,25,90,355/- being on account of computer software. The Ld. AO subscribed to the view that a computer software is an intangible asset for which permissible depreciation was @ 25%. The Ld. AO observed that in the present case the assessee company was not the owner of the software

DCIT Ltu 1, Chennai vs. M/S Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assesse and Revenue are dealt as under:-

ITA 495/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 & 93 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Insurance Company Limited, Large Tax Payer Unit, Vishranthi Melaram Towers, Chennai. No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.491, 492, 493, 494, 495 & 496 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Large Tax Payer Unit, Insurance Company Limited, Chennai. Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A.Sanjay For Ms V.Pushpa, Sr.Standing Counsel For It Dept. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2025

For Respondent: Shri A.Sanjay for Ms V.Pushpa
Section 143(3)Section 148

revenue that the assessee is eligible for claim of depreciation @ 25% on computer software since the license to use software is an intangible asset and that therefore the action of Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous in allowing depreciation @ 60%. For the purposes of this appeal the figures ... Rs.3,25,90,355/- being on account of computer software. The Ld. AO subscribed to the view that a computer software is an intangible asset for which permissible depreciation was @ 25%. The Ld. AO observed that in the present case the assessee company was not the owner of the software

DCIT Ltu 1, Chennai vs. M/S Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assesse and Revenue are dealt as under:-

ITA 494/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 & 93 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Insurance Company Limited, Large Tax Payer Unit, Vishranthi Melaram Towers, Chennai. No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.491, 492, 493, 494, 495 & 496 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Large Tax Payer Unit, Insurance Company Limited, Chennai. Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A.Sanjay For Ms V.Pushpa, Sr.Standing Counsel For It Dept. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2025

For Respondent: Shri A.Sanjay for Ms V.Pushpa
Section 143(3)Section 148

revenue that the assessee is eligible for claim of depreciation @ 25% on computer software since the license to use software is an intangible asset and that therefore the action of Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous in allowing depreciation @ 60%. For the purposes of this appeal the figures ... Rs.3,25,90,355/- being on account of computer software. The Ld. AO subscribed to the view that a computer software is an intangible asset for which permissible depreciation was @ 25%. The Ld. AO observed that in the present case the assessee company was not the owner of the software

DCIT Ltu 1, Chennai vs. M/S Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai

ITA 493/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 & 93 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited, Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chennai. आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.491, 492, 493, 494, 495 & 496 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chennai. M/S.Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited, (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A.Sanjay For Ms V.Pushpa, सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : Sr.Standing Counsel For It Dept. घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2025 Per Bench: आदेश / Order The Following Appeals Have Been Raised By The Appellant Assessee & Appellant Revenue Contesting Assessment / Appellate Orders For Ays 2008-09 To Ay 2014-15. As The Grounds Of Appeal In Respective Appeals Of Assessee & Revenue Are Largely Common, All The Appeals Are Adjudicated Through This Common Orders. S. No. A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Appeal Nos. B

For Appellant: Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.Sanjay for Ms V.Pushpa
Section 143(3)Section 148

revenue that the assessee is eligible for claim of depreciation 25% on computer software since the license to use software is an intangible asset and that therefore the action of Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous in allowing depreciation @ 60%. For the purposes of this appeal the figures ... Rs.3,25,90,355/- being on account of computer software. The Ld. AO subscribed to the view that a computer software is an intangible asset for which permissible depreciation was @ 25%. The Ld. AO observed that in the present case the assessee company was not the owner of the software

DCIT Ltu 1, Chennai vs. M/S Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai

ITA 492/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 & 93 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited, Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chennai. आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.491, 492, 493, 494, 495 & 496 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chennai. M/S.Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited, (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A.Sanjay For Ms V.Pushpa, सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing Sr.Standing Counsel For It Dept. घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 15.10.2024 08.01.2025 Per Bench: आदेश / Order The Following Appeals Have Been Raised By The Appellant Assessee & Appellant Revenue Contesting Assessment / Appellate Orders For Ays 2008-09 To Ay 2014-15. As The Grounds Of Appeal In Respective Appeals Of Assessee & Revenue Are Largely Common, All The Appeals Are Adjudicated Through This Common Orders. :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.Sanjay for Ms V.Pushpa
Section 143(3)Section 148

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'डी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'D' BENCH: CHENNΑΙ श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक

DCIT Ltu 1, Chennai vs. M/S Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai

ITA 491/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 & 93 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Insurance Company Limited, Large Tax Payer Unit, Vishranthi Melaram Towers, Chennai. No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.491, 492, 493, 494, 495 & 496 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Large Tax Payer Unit, Insurance Company Limited, Chennai. Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A.Sanjay For Ms V.Pushpa, सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : Sr.Standing Counsel For It Dept. घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 15.10.2024 08.01.2025 Per Bench: आदेश / Order The Following Appeals Have Been Raised By The Appellant Assessee & Appellant Revenue Contesting Assessment / Appellate Orders For Ays 2008-09 To Ay 2014-15. As The Grounds Of Appeal In Respective Appeals Of Assessee & Revenue Are Largely Common, All The Appeals Are Adjudicated Through This Common Orders. S. No. A Appeal Nos. B Ays C Appellate D Cit(A) Order Details E Revenue F 1

For Appellant: Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.Sanjay for Ms V.Pushpa
Section 143(3)Section 148

revenue that the assessee is eligible for claim of depreciation 25% on computer software since the license to use software is an intangible asset and that therefore the action of Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous in allowing depreciation @ 60%. For the purposes of this appeal the figures ... Rs.3,25,90,355/- being on account of computer software. The Ld. AO subscribed to the view that a computer software is an intangible asset for which permissible depreciation was @ 25%. The Ld. AO observed that in the present case the assessee company was not the owner of the software

Manju Dudala, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 665/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri V. Siva Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

erred in following the directions of the ITAT in not considering that expenses incurred towards TV serials and programmes and film rights created an intangible asset and such asset has to be depreciated over its life time as held in Accounting Standard-26? 8. Whether, on the facts and circumstances ... correct and justified in following the directions of the ITAT in allowing depreciation @25% on film software library by treating it as an intangible asset Ignoring the finding of A.O. that the said asset is an integral part of the tools used by the assessee to carry on its business

Ankalan Web Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1404/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Waseem Ahmed & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri. Rajendra Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri. V. Parithivel, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69B

case of the assessee company was selected for limited scrutiny assessment under the e-assessment scheme, 2019, on the only issue of “Investment in intangible assets”. Thereafter, notices under section 142(1) of the Act was issued. During the course of assessment proceedings, assessee submitted that the addition of intangible ... submit list of employees along with their details such as designation, salary paid, etc., along with documentary evidence to substantiate the additions made under intangible assets. Assessee was also asked to submit basis and methodology of valuation of intangible assets. Further as the assessee neither submitted its reply in response