“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

ACIT Circle 4.3.1, Mumbai vs. Just Dial Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2020-

ITA 486/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, Ms. MokshaFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 250

values as follows: - (Rs. In lacs unless otherwise stated) Particulars Rs. In lacs Rs. In lacs Assets Property, plant and equipment's (net) 3 Intangible assets 0 Cash and cash equivalents 71 Deferred tax assets on brought forward 2,588 losses Other current assets 59 2,721 Less: Liabilities Trade

ACIT Circle 4.3.1, Mumbai vs. Just Dial Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 485/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, Ms. MokshaFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 250

values as follows: - (Rs. In lacs unless otherwise stated) Particulars Rs. In lacs Rs. In lacs Assets Property, plant and equipment's (net) 3 Intangible assets 0 Cash and cash equivalents 71 Deferred tax assets on brought forward losses 2,588 Other current assets 59 2,721 Less: Liabilities Trade

ACIT Circle 4.3.1, Mumbai vs. Just Dial Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 484/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, Ms. MokshaFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 250

values as follows: - (Rs. In lacs unless otherwise stated) Particulars Rs. In lacs Rs. In lacs Assets Property, plant and equipment's (net) 3 Intangible assets 0 Cash and cash equivalents 71 Deferred tax assets on brought forward losses 2,588 Other current assets 59 2,721 Less: Liabilities Trade

ACIT Circle 4.3.1, Mumbai vs. Just Dial Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2020-

ITA 483/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, Ms. MokshaFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 250

Just Dial Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2020-

ITA 254/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, Ms. MokshaFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 250

ITO, Ward-1(1), Solapur vs. Ms. Kshirsagar Fabrics, Solapur

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

ITA 97/PUN/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

both the counsel. In the facts of the present case, it is quite clear that the petitioner was granted depreciation allowance on the intangible assets in the nature of know-how purchased by it. A regular assessment order was passed under Section 143(3) of the IT Act. In reply ... case that the petitioner has not disclosed anything to the respondents. The petitioner has given full particulars of the intangible assets and it has maintained that it is eligible for the depreciation Mr. Mistri has submitted that, in fact, Section 32(1)(i)/(ii) of the IT Act permits depreciation

Hazaribagh Ranchi Expressway Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT- Cir-14(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3788/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Bhupal RapelliFor Respondent: Shri Savya Sachi Kumar

Section 12Section 250Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(li)

claim of the appellant that the appellant is entitled to claim depreciation on Project Road u/s 12 of Act, treating the same as "Intangible assets". The Appellant prays that the right to set up an "infrastructure facility' and collect annuity thereon being in the nature of a "license" or "business ... commercial right' be regarded as an "intangible asset in terms of the provision of Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The Appellant prays that they had constructed the road and have the right to earn revenue in the form of annuity from

Hazaribagh Ranchi Expressway Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Cir-14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment years

ITA 3787/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Bhupal RapelliFor Respondent: Shri Savya Sachi Kumar

Section 12Section 250Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(li)

claim of the appellant that the appellant is entitled to claim depreciation on Project Road u/s 12 of Act, treating the same as "Intangible assets". The Appellant prays that the right to set up an “infrastructure facility’ and collect annuity thereon being in the nature of a "license" or "business ... commercial right' be regarded as an "intangible asset in terms of the provision of Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The Appellant prays that they had constructed the road and have the right to earn revenue in the form of annuity from

DCIT-14(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Music Broadcast Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 590/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am Music Broadcast Limited Asst. Cit-14(2)(2) 5Th Floor, Rna Corporate Park, Room No. 432, 4Th Floor, Kalanagar, Bandra (E), Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Bandra, Mumbai-400 051

For Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

only the license to use the software which are in the 6 ITA Nos. 525& 590/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2012-13) Music Broadcast Limited nature of ‘intangible assets’ as per clause (ii) of section 32(1) of the I. T. Act which according to the ld. A.O. had enduring benefit

Music Broadcast Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 14(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 525/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

For Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

Arvind Envisol Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1001/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Dhrunal Bhatt, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR

Section 32Section 37

filing. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that all the capital expenditure on acquisition of patents had already been capitalized under the block of intangible assets and tax depreciation has been claimed Arvind Envisol Limited vs. ACIT Asst.Year –2017-18 - 4– thereon. However, the present expenses amounting to Rs.15

Ten Construction (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT-6, Mumbai

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

ITA 2318/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shrigirish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri R.B. PopatFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das - CIT SRDR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 263(1)

assessee has submitted all the relevant documents before the Ld.AO and the Assessing Officer had inquired into all probable aspects of valuation of intangible assets and consequent claim of depreciation thereon by assessee and moreover assessee's basis of valuation of intangible assets was as per that prescribed

Sparsh Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd., Haryana vs. ITO Ward-2(4), Haryana

In the result, the appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 86/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R.R. Kumar & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Punyah Building Vs Ito Materials Pvt. Ltd. Ward-2 (1) House No.1002, Near Talab Faridabad Shiv Colony, Old Faridabad Haryana Ballahgarh Haryana 122002 Pan No.Aagcp8742B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sparsh Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Plot No.1066, Near Janta Barat Ward-2 (4) Ghar Baba Nagar, Faridabad Faridabad Haryana 121002 Haryana Pan No.Aascs2575D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Speedy Courier Services Pvt. Vs Ito Ltd. Ward- 2 (4) Plot No.1022, Near Talab Shiv Faridabad Colony, Faridabad Haryana Pan No.Aascs2579R (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

Punyah Building Materials Pvt Ltd, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward - 2(1), Faridabad

In the result, the appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 81/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

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

Speedy Courier Services Pvt Ltd, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward - 2(4), Faridabad

In the result, the appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 80/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

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

M/S. Sabarmati Gas Ltd., Gandhinagar vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 368/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2018-19 Sabarmati Gas Ltd. The Ld.Pr.Cit Plot No.907, Sector 21 Vs Ahmedabad-3. Gandhinagar 382 021 Pan : Aakcs 0110 N

For Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 37(1)Section 40

earlier been classified as Plant & Machinery ,were during the impugned year classified as Right of Way (ROW)/Right of Use(ROU) and treated as intangible assets; that as a consequence, the assessee applied higher rate of depreciation thereon, being @25% as opposed to 15% earlier applied on its classification ... Plant & Machinery. That the assessee worked out the Written Down Value(WDV) of this intangible asset as at the 3 beginning of the impugned year applying the higher rate of depreciation and the depreciation short claimed in preceding years as a consequence was claimed while computing the profits liable

Nokia India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. JCIT, Special Range-6, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 7745/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: disregarding the ALP determined by the Appellant and proceeded to determine the ALP himself.

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

disclose segmental information pertaining to market segment/sector only. 3. Owns insignificant intangibles: Engaged in development of computer software in-house. It also has intangible assets under development amounting to INR 41.83 Crores which is around 35% of value of transaction of software development services of the Assessee. 4. Undertakes significant ... company follows non-linear revenue models 3. Product company: the company is engaged in providing software delivery platform 4. Owns significant intangibles: Mindtree owns intangible assets in the nature of intelligent property and has applied for several patents. During GY 2013-14, the company filed patent application for Integrated Radio

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sony India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1166/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

received Rs. 2,549,829/- from SEAP towards such marketing survey reports.” 10. Further, he observed that the assessee company does not own any intangible assets. Further, he observed that the benchmarking of receipt of marketing cost incurred on behalf of the AE required to be analysed separately ... Income-tax Rules, 1962 as against depreciation allowed by the AO as per Part-B of Appendix – 1 considering it as “Intangible assets” which stand was confirmed by ITAT in ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, 20007-08 and 2008-09” 15. The assessee has also raised additional ground as under

Sony India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1026/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S. Mawana Sugar Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA

ITA 3498/DEL/2013[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2001-02

Bench: him in the Memorandum of Appeal. 4.1 That on facts and in law the AO erred in ado tin the figure of Taxable Capital Gains at Rs.6,98,80,603/- instead of Rs.6,90,79,603/-.

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT DR

Section 43B

that the receipt on account of transfer of trademark was a capital receipt was also considered. As per the provisions of section 32, any intangible assets including trademark is entitled for depreciation. Further, under the provisions of section 50 of the Act, any receipt on account of depreciable assets ... No.14 of 2001 reported in 252 ITR 65 (St) @ 96 reproduced @ page 54 of PB. It is accepted by Board that "certain self- generated intangible assets like brand name or trademark may not be considered to form part of the goodwill of a business .... " (iii) In the case of Modern