← 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

Edgeverve Systems Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 292/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

different assessee. 10. However, the AO rejected the assessee’s explanation. The AO found that the license soft-wares are classified as an intangible asset as per Appendix-1 of IT Rules and as per part-B of the appendix-1, the same is eligible to depreciate ... also referred to Accounting Standard 26-Intangible Assets which describes that software which is not an integral part of related hardware is to be treated as intangible assets. The AO also referred the decision of ITAT in the case ITA Nos.290 - 294/Bang/2025 Page 5 of 53 of M/s Pentamedia Graphics

Edgeverve Systems Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 291/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

different assessee. 10. However, the AO rejected the assessee's explanation. The AO found that the license soft-wares are classified as an intangible asset as per Appendix-1 of IT Rules and as per part-B of the appendix-1, the same is eligible to depreciate ... also referred to Accounting Standard 26-Intangible Assets which describes that software which is not an integral part of related hardware is to be treated as intangible assets. The AO also referred the decision of ITAT in the case of M/s Pentamedia Graphics Ltd. Accordingly, the AO treated the purchase

Edgeverve Systems Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 290/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

different assessee. 10. However, the AO rejected the assessee’s explanation. The AO found that the license soft-wares are classified as an intangible asset as per Appendix-1 of IT Rules and as per part-B of the appendix-1, the same is eligible to depreciate ... also referred to Accounting Standard 26-Intangible Assets which describes that software which is not an integral part of related hardware is to be treated as intangible assets. The AO also referred the decision of ITAT in the case ITA Nos.290 - 294/Bang/2025 Page 5 of 53 of M/s Pentamedia Graphics

Kovalam Resort Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 6580/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 6580/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) 2. Ita No. 6578/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. Ita No. 6579/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Kovalam Resort Private Dcit 2(1)(1), Limited 561, Aayakar The Leela, Sahar, Andheri Vs. Bhavan, M. K. East, Mumbai-400 059 Road, Mumbai- 400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaeck4804H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Dharan Gandi & Shri Ravi Gupta, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Ritesh Misra, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2026

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

sale consideration over the fair market value of tangible assets necessarily represents goodwill or commercial rights. It was argued that such goodwill is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smifs Securities ... fragments. It was further argued that the Supreme Court in CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd. (24 taxmann.com 22) has held that goodwill is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii). In slump sale transactions, the excess of consideration over the value of tangible assets represents commercial

Kovalam Resort Private Limtied, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 6579/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 6580/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) 2. Ita No. 6578/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. Ita No. 6579/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Kovalam Resort Private Dcit 2(1)(1), Limited 561, Aayakar The Leela, Sahar, Andheri Vs. Bhavan, M. K. East, Mumbai-400 059 Road, Mumbai- 400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaeck4804H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Dharan Gandi & Shri Ravi Gupta, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Ritesh Misra, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2026

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

sale consideration over the fair market value of tangible assets necessarily represents goodwill or commercial rights. It was argued that such goodwill is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smifs Securities ... fragments. It was further argued that the Supreme Court in CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd. (24 taxmann.com 22) has held that goodwill is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii). In slump sale transactions, the excess of consideration over the value of tangible assets represents commercial

Kovalam Resort Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6578/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

sale consideration over the fair market value of tangible assets necessarily represents goodwill or commercial rights. It was argued that such goodwill is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smifs Securities ... fragments. It was further argued that the Supreme Court in CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd. (24 taxmann.com 22) has held that goodwill is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii). In slump sale transactions, the excess of consideration over the value of tangible assets represents commercial

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Lighthouse Learning Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 5433/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 14ASection 250Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)

Smifs Securities Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 302(SC) ignoring the fact that the issue involved in that case was only whether goodwill is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation within the meaning of section 32(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the issue of valuation of goodwill ... Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the value of all the intangible assets of all the transferee and the transferor companies amounted to only Rs. 2,42,44,595/- at the end of the assessment year

K. G. Finvest Private Limited, East Delhi vs. Central Circle 29, Delhi, New Delhi

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

ITA 4330/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2015-16] K.G. Finvest Pvt. Ltd. Vs Central Circle-29, F-24 F/Floor, I.Sc Pankaj Delhi Central Market, Mandawali Fazalpur, Nr Natraj Vihar Society, I.P. Extn., New Delhi- 110092. Pan-Aaack4032H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Sudesh Garg, Adv. & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Respondent By Shri Jitender Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 26.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29 .01.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 17.06.2025 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-30, New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi-5/10256/2017-18 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 29.12.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Company Has Filed Its Return Of Income On 28.09.2015, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 5,09,130/-. The Case Was Selected Under Limited Scrutiny & Notice U/S 143(2) Followed By Statutory Notices Issued U/S 142(1) Were Issued From Time To Time. In Response, Assessee Filed Submissions & Relevant Details Alongwith Evidences. The Ao Observed That The Assessee Issued 8,40,000 Equity Shares Of Inr 10/- Each At A Premium Of Inr 490/- Each & The Valuation Of Shares Was Done By Following Dcf Method. However, The Ao Rejected The Method Of Valuation Of Share Adopted By The Assessee & Re-Computed The Value Per Share At Inr 50.35 Per Share As Per Nav Method & Made Addition Of Differential Amount Of Inr 37,77,06,000/- U/S 56(2)(Viib) Of The Act.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

company to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer, based on the value, on the date of issue of shares, of its assets, including intangible assets being goodwill, know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licenses, franchises or my other business or commercial rights of similar nature, whichever is higher; (b) "venture capital ... company to the satisfaction of the AO based on the value on the date of issue of shares including of its asset, intangible assets being goodwill, know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licenses, franchise or any other business or commercial right of similar nature “whichever is higher”. Ld.AR submits that

Bscpl Aurang Tollway Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 612/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay, wherein it was submitted that the appeal for the relevant assessment year was required to be filed within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. However, the

Section 143(3)Section 263

proper verification and consideration of the entire material on record had accepted the claim of depreciation treating the right to collect toll as an intangible asset and accepted the loss returned after due application of mind. Thus, invoking provisions of Section 263 amounts to change of opinion which ... maintain the project till 15.02.2041 during which period revenue is generated in the form of toll collections and the same partakes nature of the intangible asset and eligible for depreciation @ 25% as held by Jurisdictional Bench of Hon'ble ITAT in M/s Mokama Munger Highway

Ge India Exports Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 293/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, Sr. Advocate & Ms. ViyushtiFor Respondent: Dr. KJ Divya, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 254

also applied for several patents which are pending for approval. The said company has incurred huge research and development expenditure and having huge intangible assets in the form of intellectual property and brand. Therefore, the said company is functionally different. 15.7 Likewise, Tata Elxsi, it was observed that

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Ge India Export Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

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

ITA 253/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, Sr. Advocate & Ms. ViyushtiFor Respondent: Dr. KJ Divya, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 254

also applied for several patents which are pending for approval. The said company has incurred huge research and development expenditure and having huge intangible assets in the form of intellectual property and brand. Therefore, the said company is functionally different. 15.7 Likewise, Tata Elxsi, it was observed that

Incometax Officer, Chennai vs. Doosan Bobcat Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the CO of assessee is dismissed as not-pressed

ITA 2288/CHNY/2025[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2288/Chny/2025 & C.O No.76/Chny/2025 (Arising In Ita No.2288/Chny/2025) िनधा%रण वष% /Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, Doosan Bobcat Pvt. Ltd., Htc Towers, 6Th Floor, Corporate Ward-2(1), Vs. Chennai. No.41, Gst Road, Guindy Industrial Estate S.O., Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. Pan: Aaccd 6529L

For Respondent: Mr. Praveen.S, JCIT
Section 250Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

erred in law and on facts in allowing the assessee's claim of depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act on the intangible assets of Dealer Network, Vendor Relationship, Customer Database & Relationship and Trained Employee Base, without appreciating that these assets do not fall within the scope ... intangible assets" as defined in Explanation 3(b) to Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assets claimed by the assessee are not identifiable, transferable or enforceable proprietary rights akin to know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licenses

Par Formulations Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1009/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1009/Chny/2017 िनधा%रण वष% /Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Respondent: Mr. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 92A

erred in rejecting the independent valuation report submitted/ relied upon by the appellant to substantiate the arm's length consideration for the transfer of intangible assets. 2.1. Without prejudice to 2 above, the lower authorities also erred in law by failing to obtain an alternative expert opinion and accordingly ... method in which the said price was considered by the assessee as at arms length. The determination of the ALP towards sale of intangible assets by the assessee is tabulated below: Steps Particulars Value in INR Crores Step 1 Enterprise value as on Febrrary

Anshul Specialty Molecules Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7503/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokaranshul Speciality Dcit Circle Molecules Private 1(1)(1), Mumbai Limited Vs. Aayakar Bhawani, Flexcel Park, „C‟ Wing, S.V. Mumbai-400 020 Road, Nr. 24 Karat Multiplex, Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai- 400102 Pan/Gir No. Aabca4003H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri H. N. Motiwala, Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 22.01.2026

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 270ASection 32(1)Section 32(1)(ii)

applicable to slump sale transactions and goodwill arose as the excess of purchase consideration over the net assets acquired and constituted an intangible asset eligible for depreciation. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Smifs Securities Ltd., wherein goodwill was held ... intangible asset eligible for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii). 7. The learned CIT(A), however, did not accept the contentions of the assessee. The CIT(A) held that the goodwill of Rs. 9,79,55,271/- was newly created as a result of the slump sale

Padmaja Rajesh Harve, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 41(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5343/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Prusethpadmaja Rajesh Harve Vs. Acit-41(1)(1) Room No. 425, 4Th Floor, Kautilyabhavan, 1201-A, 64 Greens Building, Tagore Road, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Bandrakurla Santacruz West, Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400054. Mumbai -400051. Pan/Gir No:Aaxph1769E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 250Section 45Section 47Section 47ASection 54Section 54F

applies. As per sub-section (4 ) of Section 47A, the amount of profits and gains arising from transfer of capital assets or intangible assets shall be deemed to be the profits and gains ITA No.5343/MUM/2025/AY 2017-18 Padmaja Rajesh Harve chargeable to tax of the successor LLP or the shareholder

DCIT, CC-1(4), Kolkata vs. Jupiter International Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1678/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Cc-1(4), Kolkata ………….……………………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. Jupiter International Limited..……………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Unnayanam, 20A, Ashutosh Chowdhury Avenue, Kol-19.. [Pan: Aaacj6956B] Appearances By: Shri P. N Barnwal, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Nandini Sureka, Advocate, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 12, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.10.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014–15. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 197 Days & The Revenue Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay. After Going Over The Said Petition, We Find Sufficient Reasons Behind The Delay & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153ASection 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

company was about 29 years old and has its own reputation in the market and that should be taken in to account as its intangible assets as per section 56(2)(viiib)(ii) of the Act. It may be relevant to mention that on similar issue in assessee ... 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". I think while calculating the fair

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 1 1, Chennai vs. Fl Smith Private Limited, Kanchipuram

ITA 1763/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1682/Chny/2024 & Co No.71/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.: 1682/Chny/2024) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. Flsmidth Private Limited, Vs. 34Th Egatoor, Flsmidth House, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram – 603 103. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aaacf-4997-N] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/ Cross Objector) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1731 & 1763/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. Flsmidth Private Limited, Vs. 34Th Egatoor, Flsmidth House, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram – 603 103. [Pan: Aaacf-4997-N] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Department By : Shri. P.M.Kathir, Advocate & Shri S.P.Chidambaram, Advocate : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O Rder : 15.12.2025 : 21.01.2026 Per Bench: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai (In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”) Against Orders U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 92Ca(3) R.W.S 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act') For The

For Respondent: Shri. P.M.Kathir, Advocate and
Section 143(3)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)

FLSmidth Pfister India Limited into FLSmidth Private Limited during the year 9.1. The AO erred in denying, in limine, the claim of Depreciation on Intangible assets pursuant to the merger of FLSmidth Pfister India Limited ('FPIL

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Corporate Circle 1-1, Chennai vs. Fl Smidth Private Limited, Kanchipuram

ITA 1731/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1682/Chny/2024 & Co No.71/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.: 1682/Chny/2024) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. Flsmidth Private Limited, Vs. 34Th Egatoor, Flsmidth House, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram – 603 103. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aaacf-4997-N] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/ Cross Objector) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1731 & 1763/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. Flsmidth Private Limited, Vs. 34Th Egatoor, Flsmidth House, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram – 603 103. [Pan: Aaacf-4997-N] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Assessee By Department By : Shri. P.M.Kathir, Advocate & Shri S.P.Chidambaram, Advocate : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O Rder : 15.12.2025 : 21.01.2026 Per Bench: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai (In Short "Ld.Cit(A)") Against Orders U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 92Ca(3) R.W.S 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The 'Act') For The

For Respondent: Shri. P.M.Kathir, Advocate and
Section 143(3)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)

FLSmidth Pfister India Limited into FLSmidth Private Limited during the year 9.1. The AO erred in denying, in limine, the claim of Depreciation on Intangible assets pursuant to the merger of FLSmidth Pfister India Limited ('FPIL

Assisstant Commisioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 1 1, Chennai vs. Fl Smith Private Limited, Kanchipuram

ITA 1682/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1682/Chny/2024 & Co No.71/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.: 1682/Chny/2024) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. Flsmidth Private Limited, Vs. 34Th Egatoor, Flsmidth House, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram – 603 103. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aaacf-4997-N] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/ Cross Objector) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1731 & 1763/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. Flsmidth Private Limited, Vs. 34Th Egatoor, Flsmidth House, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram – 603 103. [Pan: Aaacf-4997-N] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Assessee By Department By : Shri. P.M.Kathir, Advocate & Shri S.P.Chidambaram, Advocate : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O Rder : 15.12.2025 : 21.01.2026 Per Bench: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai (In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”) Against Orders U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 92Ca(3) R.W.S 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act') For The

For Respondent: Shri. P.M.Kathir, Advocate and
Section 143(3)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)

FLSmidth Pfister India Limited into FLSmidth Private Limited during the year 9.1. The AO erred in denying, in limine, the claim of Depreciation on Intangible assets pursuant to the merger of FLSmidth Pfister India Limited ('FPIL

Colour Creation Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-4(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse is allowed

ITA 2418/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shrisatbeer Singh Godara & Shri Shris.Rifaur Rahmancolour Creation Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax A-49, Naraina Industrial Area, Circle 4(2), Central Revenue Building, Phase-1, New Delhi-110028. I P Estate, New Delhi-110002. (Pan No. Aaecc0920A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Ajay Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2025 Date Of Order : 21.01.2026 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: The Assesse Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Addl/Jcit-7, Mumbai Dated 13.02.2025 For Assessment Year 2017-18, Wherein The Assesse Has Raised Following Grounds:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Learned Cit (Appeals) Nfac Is Bad, Both In The Eye Of Law & On The Facts. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Learned Cit (Appeals) Nfac Has Erred Both On Facts & In Law In Passing The Order Without Giving Assessee A Proper & Adequate Opportunity Of Being Heard In Clear Violation Of Principle Of Natural Justice. 3.(I). On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit (Appeals) Nfac Has Erred, Both On Facts & In Law, In Confirming The Assessment Order, Assessing The Loss Of The Assesseers. 11,10,00,840/- As Against The Returned Loss Of Rs. 11,13,22,840/-.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Arora, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

other factors like know how, finance acquired by the company and moving experience of the director and the same license of business besides intangible assets like goodwill. 3. After considering the submission of the assessee, the Assessing Officer rejected the same and in view of the provisions of section