“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

Ims Health Analytics Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 300/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyit(Tp)A No.300/Bang/2022

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Tolani & Sri Darpan Kriplani, CAFor Respondent: Shri A Sreenivasa Rao, CIT (DR)

intangibles, brand value, subcontracting expenses as compared to the Assessee who did not possess the same. ^ Functionally dissimilar- business process management ^ Ownership of intangible assets & IPs ^ Brand Value/Marketing expenses ^ Consultancy expenses in the nature of Sub-contracting charges 11. "In view of the above order of the Tribunal, which

Gunvantbhai Narandas Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Gandhinagar

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

ITA 1459/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 68

ITA No.1459/Ahd/2024 A.Y: 2013-14 Gunvantbhai Narandas Patel vs. ITO Page 1 of 5 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

ACIT Circle 8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Ganjam Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross

ITA 458/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan: A.Y. : 2018-19 C.O. No. 99/Mum/2024 : A.Y. : 2018-19 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 458/M/24)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate &For Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 14ASection 2Section 32

section 32 of the Act. Probably, what is described as “goodwill” in the balance sheet of business need not always be an intangible asset entitled to depreciation. It should be capable of independent evaluation. Further , in order that an asset may be depreciable , it should lose its value ... against the word „ at large‟ or in legal parlance „ in rem‟. The Hon‟ble Delhi Court also distinguished the term goodwill considered as intangible asset by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Smifs Securities Pvt Ltd by stating that every species of right spelt out expressly

Orion India Systems Private Limited, Mumbai Maharashtra vs. PCIT, Mumbai-Six Circle Fifteen (One)(One)

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1449/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Khevana GandhiFor Respondent: Mr. R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 50B(1)Section 92C

assets as Goodwill. The learned PCIT, vide aforesaid show cause notice, alleged that the assessee has claimed depreciation to the extent of 25% on intangible asset recognized as “Goodwill” in its books, which aspect was not examined by the AO while passing the assessment order under section ... Default in TDS & Disallowance for such Default ii. International Related Party Transactions in Services iii. Default in TDS iv Refund claim v. Investment in intangible Assets 4 7. It was further submitted that during the assessment proceedings, inter- alia, the specific query was raised by the AO as regards

Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Limited, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

ITA 327/AHD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.327/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Gujarat State Electricity The Asst.Commissioner Of बनाम/ Corporation Ltd. Income Tax V/S. Sardar Patel Vidyut Bhavan Circle-1(1)(1) Race Course Circle Vadodara Alkapuri Vadodara – 390 007 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaacg 6864 F (अपीलाथ&/ Appellant) ('( यथ&/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish J. Shah & Shri Rushin Patel, Ars Revenue By : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Matter Has Been Recalled Pursuant To The Order Of The Co-Ordinate Bench Dated 04.04.2024 In M.A. No. 104/Ahd/2023, Filed In Connection With I.T.A. No. 327/Ahd/2020 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. The Co-Ordinate Bench, In Its Original Order Dated 19.09.2023, Disposed Of The Appeal Filed By The Assessee. However, It Was Subsequently Observed That Ground No.4 Pertaining To The Disallowance Of Miscellaneous Losses Amounting To Rs.2.09 Crores Was Not Adjudicated In The Original Order Due To Inadvertence. Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd. Vs. Acit Asst. Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah &For Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR

Loss on Obsolescence of Fixed Assets: Rs.2,56,376.12. • Loss on Sale of Scrap: Rs.1,42,10,739.50. • Write-off of Intangible Assets: Rs.19,57,676.00. • Bad Debts Written Off: Rs.22,50,000.00. • Small & Low-Value Items Written Off: Rs.3,01,799.60. • Write-off of WDV of Scrapped Assets: Rs.45

DCIT-13(1)(2), Mumbai, Income Tax Dept. Mumbai vs. Qyuki Digital Media Pvt. Ltd., Bandra

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

ITA 3758/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2012-13 Dcit-13(1)(2), Qyuki Digital Media Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 218, 7/8, Hari Niwas Building, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 30Th Cross Road, Mumbai. Off S.V. Road, Bandra (W) Mumbai. Pan : Aaocs4185R (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Prateek Jha & Shri Prayag Jha, For Revenue : Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 10-12-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-12-2024

For Appellant: Shri Prateek Jha &For Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR

Section 68

assesse as on 31.03.2013 it is noticed that assesse has shown fixed asset under the head tangible assets of Rs.45,46,616/- and intangible assets of Rs.11,30,761/- and also shown current asset under the head trade receivable at Rs.5,61,800/-, cash and cash equivalent Rs.7 ... short term provision of Rs.3,07,217/-. As on 31.03.2014 and as on 31.03.2015 the assesse has shown tangible assets and intangible assets under the fixed assets at Rs. 35,46,970/- and Rs. 5,68,537/- for assessment year 2014-15 and Rs.16,92,491/- and Rs.11

Incorp Advisory Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 4864/MUM/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri.B.R. Baskaran & Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: ShriMargav Shukla & Shri ShubhamFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263

liable to be quashed. 4. On given facts, circumstances and judicial pronouncements Ld. Pr. CIT-6 error in concluding that the intangible assets were individually valued in a transaction of slump sale vide Business Transfer Agreement, thereby concluding that the assessee is ineligible to claim depreciation on Intangible Assets acquired ... order u/s 263 without giving any specific direction to the Assessing Officer as to whether the depreciation claimed by the assessee on the Intangible Assets acquired is to be disallowed or not. Such order without any specific direction is bad in law and liable to be quashed.” 6. The appellant

Agricom Foods Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Mumbai-2, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2716/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Dr.K.R.Subhash,CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

above said firm was shown at Rs.69.77 crores in the sale agreement. The balance amount of Rs.30.23 crores was shown as the value of Intangible assets. However, the sale agreement did not specify the break-up details shown the nature of intangible assets. In both the years under consideration ... assessee claimed depreciation on the intangible assets amount of Rs.30.23 crores. 2.2. The Ld. PCIT noticed that the AO did not examine the correctness or otherwise of depreciation claimed on the Intangible assets in both the years under consideration. He also noticed that the AO had examined the said issue

Agricom Foods Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2709/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Dr.K.R.Subhash,CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

Goldman Sachs (India) Securiteis Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Add/Jt/Dy/Asst/CIT/ITO/NFAC, Delhi

ITA 763/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 253(1)Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL

DCIT Circle 27(1), New Delhi vs. United Drilling Tools Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5913/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Before Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 36(1)(va)

Disallowance of amount claimed to be incurred for charity and donation Rs. 2,39,501/- • Disallowance of deprecation claimed on intangible Asset Rs. 5,48,77,532/- 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 27/12/2017, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide ... assessment year 2014-15 which assessment stood accepted under section 143(3) of the Act. In the instant year, the aforesaid value of intangible assets has been declared as opening value of assets and depreciation accordingly claimed in the instant year. The Assessing Officer has denied the aforesaid deduction primarily

M/S. Trivitron Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai-3

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

ITA 1745/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. M. Murali, CIT

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 35

interest method. If a company follows pooling of interest method, obviously there will not be any goodwill at all, which can be termed as intangible assets). 22. However, for book purpose, especially while issuing shares of the amalgamated company (say B) to the erstwhile shareholders of the amalgamating company ... distinguishable as the question before the Hon'ble Supreme Court is only whether the goodwill arising out of amalgamation is intangible assets or not and about the allowance depreciation u/s 32(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, especially when the merger in this case is under pooling of interest

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru vs. Cmr Jnanadhara Trust, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 291/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.K Mishra, CIT (DR)

Section 1Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)

rates, taxes, and other government levies applicable to such entities. . Page 4 of 23 2) The specified entities did not possess any extraordinary or intangible assets that could justify the receipt of such substantial payments from the trust. 3) The specified entities were exclusively engaged in rendering services ... while arriving at the conclusion that M/s. Edufice Educational Services Pvt. Ltd does not possess any extra-ordinary qualification or an intangible asset so as to demand such huge payment. Such a conclusion regarding the Intellectual capability of the service provider without going into the details of service provided iris

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru vs. Cmr Jnanadhara Trust, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 290/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.K Mishra, CIT (DR)

Section 1Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)

Dow Chemical International Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -14(1)(2), Mumbai

Appeal are allowed

ITA 5446/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri B R Baskaran: A.Y. : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Pranay GandhiFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 43(1)

quantum of income disclosed. The return was selected for scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, the claim of depreciation on certain intangible assets was taken up for consideration. 4. The appellant claimed that pursuant to amalgamation of Rohm and Haas (India) Pvt. Ltd. (RHIPL) with the appellant ... proviso to Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short), disallowed the claim of depreciation on the intangible assets. 6. The learned CIT(A) concurred with the view taken by the Assessing Officer. The assessee challenged the same before this Tribunal in ITA No. 1201/Mum/2023

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Thane, Ashar It Part, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane West vs. Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Private Limited, Sandozbaugh So Thane

ITA 3325/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 143(3)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

DCIT, Central Circle-28, New Delhi vs. Uppal Housing Private Limited, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 948/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri M. Balaganeshdcit, Vs. Uppal Housing Pvt. Ltd, 1St Floor, East Tower, Nbcc Central Circle-28, New Delhi Place, Pragati Vihar, Lodhi Road, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacu17986A Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. Adv Shri Shailesh Gupta, Ca Revenue By: Shri N. G. Joseph Gangte, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 22/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2024

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri N. G. Joseph Gangte, CIT DR

Section 131Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

estate as that of the assessee company. The ld AO observed from the financials of the lender company that there was no tangible or intangible assets reflected thereon in the financials and the said company does not have any operational income from any stated business during the year. The assessee

ACIT, Aayakar Bhawan Church Gate vs. Sbicap Securities Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5076/MUM/2024[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2024

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year: 2014

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Gaikwad, Sr.DR

brought out that the assessee had right to use software license till the period of agreement and payment of license fee making it as intangible assets? 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and/or vary any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing ... carefully considered the orders of the authority below. We find that the depreciation schedule provides separate rates of depreciation for computer with Softwares and intangible assets. The schedule provides depreciation on computers including computer software at the rate of 60%. Computer Software has not been further bifurcated which means that

Dow Chemical International Private Limited, Thane vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - 14(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 3772/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. AR /

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32

assets taken over including the identified assets and the consideration was recognised as intangibles in the books of the assessee. As a result, the intangible assets such as goodwill, distribution network and customer relations were transferred to the assessee apart from the tangible assets taken over like land, factory building ... furniture, being tangible assets or know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, being intangible assets allowable to the predecessor and the successor in the case of succession referred to in clause (xiii), clause (xiiib) and clause (xiv) of section

Dow Chemicals International Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Ta-14(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1200/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. AR /

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32