“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

Geranium Bakers Private Lmited, Ballabhgarh vs. ITO Ward-1(3), Faridabad

In the result, the appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 102/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 People Care Hospitals Private Vs Ito Limited, Plot No.1066, Baba Ward- 2 (1) Nagar, Near Janta Barat Ghar, Faridabad Old Faridabad, Haryana 121002 Pan No.Aagcp8745G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Geranium Barkers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito 103/B, Near Shyamji Mandir Ward-1 (3) Malerna Road, Adarsh Nagar, Faridabad Ballabgarh Haryana -122004 Pan No.Aafcg3396P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Riven Health Club Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Ff-9, Vishnu Place Near Ward- 2 (2) Neelam Flyover Sector-20B Faridabad Faridabad Haryana121001 Pan No. Aagcr1343A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants By Sh. Rajeev Saxena, Advocate Ms. Sumangla Saxena, Advocate Sh. Dishant Sethi, Advocate

Section 131oSection 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

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;" Further ... also recognized and encouraging the start-ups." iii) DQ (International) Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITA 151/Hyd/2015) "10...... In our considered view, for valuation of an intangible asset, only the future projections along can be adopted and such valuation cannot be reviewed with actual after 3 or 4 years down the line

M/S. Ritu Housing Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-13(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee isallowed

ITA 185/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata30 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member Shri Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(6)

argued that the goodwill generated as a result of amalgamation of M/s Pallavi Goods Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Sunglow Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. was legitimate intangible assets entitled depreciation u/s 32 of the Act. It is further contended that the goodwill was recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee ... amalgamation. The assessee had paid consideration in excess of the net asset value of amalgamating companies and excess amount represent the goodwill, which was intangible asset arising from the right to carry on the business customers relationship and other commercial benefits that were transferred to the assessee as a result

Parexel International Services India Pvt.Ltd, Chandigarh vs. ACIT, Circle-5(1), (Neac), Chandigarh

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

ITA 129/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, CAFor Respondent: Shri Reuben Mathew Jacob, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(C)

Assessing officer ('Ld. AO’) in proposing an adjustment of INR 131,29,52,199 to the international transaction pertaining to sale of intangible assets by the Appellant to its associated enterprise ('AE') by imputing a mark-up of 33.13%on the sale value. While doing ... inseparable whole. Out of the total consideration of Rs. 597 crores, an amount of Rs. 387,72,70,024/- was allocated to certain intangible assets, which were in the nature of trade name, 4 customer contracts and customer relationships. The valuation report of an independent valuer formed the basis

Deutsche India Pvt. Ltd.(Earlier Known As 'Dboi Global Services Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. ACIT-1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for 16

ITA 2522/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J.D. MistriFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92CSection 92D

repairs and insurance ofplant, 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.  Section 33 allows development rebate on machinery, plantsand ships.  Section 34 statesconditions for depreciation and development rebate.  Section

Amazon Web Services India Private Limited, Delhi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-1, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 2706/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Kumara.Yr. : 2018-19 Amazon Web Services India Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Delhi-1, Block-3, 14Th Floor, Unit Delhi Nos. 1401 To 1421, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New International Trade Delhi Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110 019 (Pan: Aajca9880A) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Ms. DeepashreeFor Respondent: Mr. Javed Akhtar, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 92C

novation of customer contracts as these would generate revenue for the Company. The aforesaid amount was capitalised in the books of account as an intangible asset out of which Rs.71,808,000 was amortized during the year and debited to the statement of profit and loss account under the head ... Depreciation and amortization expense - Amortization of intangible assets” In the ROI filed for the year under consideration, the assessee had treated amortisation of Rs.71,808,000/- as non- deductible and added back the same to the total income. It is noted that here that the aforesaid issue of customer contract

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Indore vs. Commander Industries Private Limited, Indore

ITA 24/IND/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 32(1)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)(c)Section 47

amalgamation/merger should not be made. The assessee filed its reply dated 30.03.2022. The AO noted that the assessee has claimed depreciation @25% of intangible asset of Rs.29,21,05,207/- shown as goodwill representing the payment over and above the net book value of assets of four amalgamating companies merged ... companies were recognised in the books of accounts of the appellant as payment for acquiring the goodwill and the same has been recognised as intangible asset & thereafter, depreciation was claimed u/s.32 of the Act in the impugned AY 2020-21. In this regard, the appellant had relied on the decision

DCIT, Circle-5(1)(1), Aayakar Bhawan vs. Coffer Construction Technology Pvt. Ltd., Tardeo

ITA 3046/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Mihir Naniwadekar & Shri Rohan Deshpande, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. D/R

Section 115JSection 3(4)Section 43(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण न्यायपीठ, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON

Venkatesh Naik Mohandas & Sons, Calicut vs. The ACIT, Kozhikkode

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 561/COCH/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhvenkatesh Naik Mohandas & Sons Acit, Circle 1(1) & Tps 10/993, Sri Venkatesh Palayalam Aayakar Bhavan Road, Palayam Vs. Mananchira Calicut 673001 Kozhikode 673001 [Pan: Aabfv9069R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Balram R. Rao, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R

Section 250Section 32(1)(ii)

amounting to 50,17,781/-. 2 Venkatesh Naik Mohandas & Sons 3. The Ld. CIT(A) as well authorities below failed to appreciate that the intangible assets being Trademark, which was transferred by the Partner, Mr. Rajeev Mohandas were business assets and by no stretch of imagination could be treated ... personal asset, since intangible asset always arise in course of business. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) as well as the authorities below failed to appreciate that the payment of 24 crore was made in pursuance of order of the High Court of Kerala dated 5.1.2016 and therefore

ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur vs. Aia Engineering Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 532/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 397/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 बनाम Aia Engineering Limited, Dcit Vs. 115, Gvmm Estate, Odhav Road, Circle-1(1)(1), Odhav, Ahmedabad-382415 Ahmedabad Pan : Aabca 2777 J आयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 532/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 बनाम Aia Engineering Limited, Acit, Vs. 115, Gvmm Estate, Odhav Road, Circle-1(1)(1), Odhav, Ahmedabad-382415 Ahmedabad Pan : Aabca 2777 J अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Pratik Sharma, Sr Dr & Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2024 सुनवाई क" क" तारीख सुनवाई सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21.10.2024 घोषणा घोषणा घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Pratik Sharma, Sr DR &

Section 154Section 250Section 32

disallowance of depreciation claimed by the assessee on goodwill. The contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee before us was that:- (i) The intangible asset of good-will had accrued to the assessee on account of amalgamation of its wholly owned subsidiary, i.e. DCPL Foundries Limited, in the assessee ... claim of depreciation related to assets transferred in AIA Engineering Ltd - Cross Appeals AY : 2016-17 the scheme of amalgamation and goodwill being an intangible asset not transferred from the amalgamating company to the amalgamated company but resulting on account of amalgamation ,was unaffected by the provisions referred

Dhola Infra Projects Limited (Formerly Known As Navayuga Dhola Infra Projects Limited), Mumbai vs. ACIT., Circle-16(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 800/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Bleassessment Year – 2016-17 Dhola Infra Projects Limited Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Tax (Formerly Known As Navayuga Circle-16(1) Dhola Infra Projects Limited Hyderabad Mumbai Pan : Aadcn3696B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Paras S.Savla, Ld.Ar (Through Virtual Hearing) Revenue By: Shri U Mini Chandran, Ld.Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.10.2024

For Appellant: Shri Paras S.Savla, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri U Mini Chandran, Ld.DR

Section 234DSection 244ASection 56(2)(viib)

Infiben Avenues Ltd (Formerly Infibeam Incorporation Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 108/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37

profit and loss account, representing a contingent liability that only becomes an actual liability when employees exercise their options. The company also increased its intangible assets under development by Rs.13,69,90,000/-, Infibeam Avenues Ltd. (formerly known as Infibeam Incorporation Ltd.) vs. PCIT Asst.Year –2017-18 - 7– which included

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Baroda vs. M/S. Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the Department’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 741/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

Gujarat vide judgement dated 03.05.2013 under sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956. As a result of this arrangement, certain tangible and intangible assets have been transferred from SPIL to the assessee company. On perusal of the Schedule-11 (Fixed Assets) of the Audited Account ... noticed that Rs.15,23,97,000/= were debited by the assessee company under the head (depreciation/amortization) against the Intangible Assets of Rs.182,87,70,00,000/= for the first time in the relevant column of e-ITR. In the computation of income, the assessee company has added back depreciation/amortization amount

Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Baroda

In the result, the Department’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 712/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

ACIT-3 3 1, Mumbai vs. Jamnagar Utilities and Power Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4452/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Section 115JSection 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 80GSection 80G(5)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS PADMAVATHY S, AM, & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JM Ι.Τ

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolhpaur vs. Rbl Bank Ltd, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 657/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Assessee. The Ld. AO treated the expenditure as capital in nature, but allowed depreciation @ 25% (of Rs 37.30 Crores, treating it as intangible asset. This resulted in net addition of Rs 111 .90 Crores. b. Claim for bad debts u/s 36(1 )(vii) amounting ... Memorandum” dated 25/9/2013 issued by PWC to assessee advising about deductibility of expenses paid for acquisition of assets and allowability of depreciation on intangible assets. Ld.AR also filed an affidavit of the Chief Financial Officer of the assessee explaining the reasons for not filing the said Opinion of PWC during

M/S. Shristi Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1256/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Sept 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm M/S Shristi Infrastructure Dcit, Development Corporation Circle 11(1) Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, Plot No.X-12 & 3, Block P-7, Chowringhee Vs. Ep, Sector V Salt Lake City, Square, Kolkata700069 Kolkata-700 091 West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp5074F Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surna, Ar Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2024

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surna, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Development corporation; A.Y. 2016-17 (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, owned, wholly or partly, by the assessee and used for the purposes ... Explanation 3.-For the purposes of this sub-section, {the expression "assets'/shall mean- (a) tangible assets, being buildings, machinery, plant or furniture; (b) intangible assets, being know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature 1.2 Therefore on a bare reading

Philips Foods India Private Limited, Tuticorin vs. PCIT-1, Madurai

ITA 640/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 640/Chny/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Year: 2016-17 Philips Foods India Private Limited, The Principal Commissioner Of Vs. C-75 / 76, Sipcot Industrial Complex, Madathoor, Tuticorin - 628008 [Pan: Aabcp7916Q] Madurai-1 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Ashik Sha, Ca, Mr.Vinay Jain Ca, Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : This Appeal Is Filed Against The Order Bearing Din & Order No.Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2022-23/1051684572(1) Dated 30.03.2023 Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Herein After “Pcit" For The

For Appellant: Shri Ashik Sha, CA

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 92C

documentation that PFHK has performed the functions of manufacturing, marketing and distribution and borne product and market related risks apart from utilizing the intangible assets of Trademark, Patent and Know- how of PFUS as its Licensee, you have not furnished any details in this regard with evidences and thus

Tag Chemicals (India) Private Ltd, Ernakulam vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), Trivandrum

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 678/COCH/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Tag Chemicals (India) Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle - 1(1) Kinfra Bio-Technology & Trivandrum Industrial Zone Vs. Thrikkakara North Part Hmt Colony, Ernakulam 683503 [Pan: Aacct8064G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.V. Hariharan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Girly Albert, Sr. D.R

Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 37

assessee should be allowed the benefit of depreciation as provided u/s 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) treating the same as intangible asset. 6. Without prejudice to the above, the learned A.R. also contended that it is not disputed that the lease premium expenditure was incurred exclusively ... whereas the assessee has contended that the assessee has got a license for a period of 30 years and as such it is an "intangible assets". Thus, the assessee is entitled for depreciation as per section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. We observe that the said amount of Rs.150

Northern Operating Services Private Limited, Argon South Tower vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 5 (1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1565/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Northern Operating Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 2Nd Floor Rmz Ecopace, Circle – 5(1)(1), Campus 1C, Bengaluru. Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Bellandur, Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan : Aaccn 1652 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Divya Motwani, Ca. Revenue By : Shri. D. K. Mishra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.09.2024

For Appellant: Ms. Divya Motwani, CAFor Respondent: Shri. D. K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 135Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 234BSection 270ASection 274Section 80G

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

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax 8(2)(1), Mumbai, Ayakar Bhavan vs. Piramal Glass Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1232/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2021-22 Asst. Cit-8(2)(1), Piramal Glass Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 481, Aayakar Bhavan, 6Th Floor, Piramal Tower Annexe Maharishi Karve Road, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Mumbai-400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aabcg 0093 R Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Ronak Doshi &

Section 36(1)(ii)

relates to disallowance of 4.2 Ground No. 2 relates to disallowance of depreciation on non depreciation on non- compete fees @ 25% being intangible assets. The appellant has compete fees @ 25% being intangible assets. The appellant has compete fees @ 25% being intangible assets. The appellant has raised an alternative ground that ... alternative ground that the depreciation on non raised an alternative ground that the depreciation on non-compete fees should be allowed @ 25% for intangible assets as ‘any other fees should be allowed @ 25% for intangible assets as ‘any other fees should be allowed @ 25% for intangible assets as ‘any other