“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

ITO, Cw-1(1), Chennai vs. Inspirisys Solutions Ltd, Chennai

The appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 11/CHNY/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.9,10 & 11/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-2016) & C.O.Nos.5, 6 &7/Chny/2023 (In Ita Nos.9,10 & 11/Chny/2022) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Inspirisys Solutions Limited, Corporate Ward 1(1) First Floor, New Door Nos. 57,59,63 & 64, Chennai 600 034. Dowlath Towers, Taylors Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010. [Pan: Aaaca 5622M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent/ Cross Objector) Department By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit. Shri. Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl. Cit Assessee By : Shri. N.V. Balaji, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri. N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT

Section 14ASection 253

claimed on application software. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee has acquired application software and no intangible assets was generated and these software are used for generating revenue to the company and as such are entitled to 100% depreciation. 3. The learned ... claimed on application software. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee has acquired application software and no intangible assets was generated and these software are used for generating revenue to the company and as such are entitled to 100% depreciation. 5. The learned

ITO, Cw-1(1), Chennai vs. Inspirisys Solutions Limited, Chennai

The appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 10/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri. N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT

Section 14ASection 253

R1 Rcm Holdco Inc. (Formerly Known As R1 Rcm Inc.), Usa vs. DCIT, Int. Taxation, Gurgaon

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

ITA 2044/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 92C

number of IT systems which are owned, leased, supported and hosted by it. 5 IT department of the assessee manages IT resources (tangible and intangible assets) of the assessee through formulating policies and ensuring compliance for the same. (e) The assessee has licensed software through Enterprise License Agreements which form

The JCIT (OSD), Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Magnet Buildtech P. Ltd, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 489/AHD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.489/Ahd/2020 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 The Jcit (Osd) M/S. Magnet Buildtech Pvt.Ltd. Circle-2(1)(1) बनाम/ 906-907, Indraprasth Corporate Ahmedabad Opp. Venus Atlantis V/S. Anand Nagar Road Ahmedabad – 380 015 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaicm 4158 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Chokshi & Shri Dhrunal Bhatt, Ars Revenue By : Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23/07/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 09/07/2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-32, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)” In Short] Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 11/12/2018 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. The Jcit (Osd) Vs. M/S.Magnet Buildtech Pvt.Ltd. Asst. Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi &For Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

shares 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. 4. The CIT(A) failed

ACIT 3 3 1, Mumbai vs. Jamnagar Utilities and Power Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2117/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mr. Nimesh Vora/Ms. MokashaFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37Section 37(1)Section 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SUNIL

Benetton India P.Ltd, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi

ITA 496/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 496/Del/2022 (A.Y 2017-18) Benetton India Pvt. Ltd., Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Plot No. 25B, Block Infocity Vs. Tax, Circle : 4 (2), Sector : 34, Gurugram, New Delhi. Haryana.Pan:Aaacd1013F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak Chopra, H. S. Ajmani, Sh. Ankul Goel & Ms. Rashi Khanna, Advs Department By: Shri Mahesh Shah, [Cit] D.R. & Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, H. S. Ajmani, ShFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)

audited financials were available at the time of the TPO’s order. He further submitted that there is negligible impact of owning intangible assets as the assessee does not use these assets in provision of services. 63. The Ld. AR objected to the company’s inclusion as it owns significant

ACIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi vs. Benetton India P.Ltd, Gurgaon

ITA 7389/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, H. S. Ajmani, ShFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)

J vs. Industries Pvt. Ltd., Vadodaravs.the Pr. CIT, Vadodara-1, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 411/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43Section 49

assessment Scheme, 2019. The reason for selection was Share premium, investment in JVS Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT Asst.Year –2018-19 - 3– intangible assets and disallowance of gratuity provision. The scrutiny proceedings were completed by NeAC u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act vide order dated ... case records, it was observed by PCIT that during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO has asked the assessee to furnish details of intangible assets acquired during the year and mode of payment for acquiring such intangible assets along with supportive documentary evidences. However, no details as to what

Cap Gemini Technology Services India Limited(Formerly Known As Igate Global Solution Limited)-M/S Patni Telecom Solutions Pvt Ltd, Changed Name to M/S.Igate Information Services Private Limited Merged With Igate Global Solutions Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward - 2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal raised by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 446/HYD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.446/Hyd/2015 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11) Cap Gemini Vs. Income Tax Officer Technology Services Ward 2(1) India Ltd(Formerly Igate Hyderabad Global Solutions Ltd) Hyderabad Pan:Aacca4255G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate A.V. Raghuram राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 23/07/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocate A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT(DR)

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 92C(2)

comparables. 4. In retaining companies viz., E-Infochips Bangalore Limited and Kals Information Systems Limited as comparables which are into diversified business and has intangible assets and operates at full-fledged risk bearing entity. 5. In retaining company Persistent Systems Limited as comparable which in into product development apart from

Tripoto Travel Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-25(2), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6250/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Brij Mohan Barwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

viib), of the Act, the fair market value of unquoted equity shares can be substantiated by the company on the basis of intangible assets which in case of the assessee was in the form of its own developed software for which international patent was also applied. It was also submitted

Hospira Healthcare India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

ITA 469/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.469/Chny/2017 िनधा<रण वष< /Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Hospira Healthcare India The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax, Sri-Nivas, New No.86 (Old No.89), Corporate Circle-2(2), Gn Chetty Road, T Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan: Aaabco 2190F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Sriram Seshadri, C.A Jkथ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.07.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Jagadish, A.M : Aforesaid Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed By The Dcit, Corporate Circle-2(2), Chennai U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012-13, In Pursuance Of The Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel, Bengalore (Hereinafter ‘Drp’) Vide Directions Dated 09.11.2016. :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, C.A JKFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT

Section 143(3)

assessee were the merchant bankers authorized to make such valuation. The prices paid were for the tangible assets as well as the intangible assets like customer relationships, contract manufacturing, developed products, in-process research and development and goodwill. For raising the capital that was required for acquiring the unit from ... also made payment to Mr. K. Raghavendra Rao for non-compete fee during F.Y 2010-11 and F.Y 2011-12 and claimed as intangible asset. 2.2. During the relevant previous year, assessee had affected sales of Rs. 555.9 Crore to its Associated Enterprises. The assessee also had similar transactions with

Ram Ratan Jangir, Amer vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -7(2), Jaipur

In the result ground no. 1 raised by the

ITA 550/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Anoop Bhatiya, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

respect of depreciation of – (ii) know-how, patents, copyrights, trade marks, licenses, franchises or any other business or commercial rights or similar nature, being intangible assets acquired on or after the 1st day of April, 1998" The position of Income tax provisions being such it is abundantly clear that ... with section 32(1)(ii). In other words, disallowance of 17 Ram Ratan Jangir vs. ITO depreciation can be made only in respect of intangible assets, whereas building, plant, machinery, furniture etc. are tangible assets and fall u/s 32(1)(i) which is not covered u/s 38(2). In view

Publicis Communications Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax - Circle 7(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 2354/MUM/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, A/RFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt, Sr. D/R

Section 32

disallowing depreciation is that the assessee is not using the brand of CAPL. We have already noted that the assessee has acquired certain intangible assets in the form of patents, trade marks, customer base etc., besides the other assets and liabilities and therefore in our considered view the cost ... Assessing Officer with a direction to decide it in accordance with the decision for AY 2000-01 and to consider whether assessee has acquired intangible assets eligible for depreciation. The relevant observations of the coordinate bench is extracted below – 022. Ground no.3 and ground no.4 are with respect to depreciation

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 122/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

Section 148Section 250Section 54FSection 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH Before: Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial

Tek Systems Global Services Private Limited, Hyderbad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderbad

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

ITA 487/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.487/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Tek Systems Global Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Services (P) Ltd, Circle 2(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabcf1518Q (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Ms. K. Amulya, Ca रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/05/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 05/07/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Ms. K. Amulya, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 270A

agreement was a colourable device to avoid the payment of taxes. As such the depreciation of Rs. 33,46,509/- claimed it on such intangible assets was disallowed. During the Page 6 of 36 ITA No 487 of 2022 TEK Systems Global Services P Ltd current year again is noticed ... that the assessee has claimed a depreciation of Rs. 44,13,774|- on intangible assets of Rs. 1,76,55,094/. For the reasons as discussed above this depreciation of Rs. 44,13,774/- was being disallowed. 5. Penalty proceedings u/s 270A are initiated for under reporting of income. Accordingly

Prl Developers Private Limited, Mumbai City vs. Circle 8(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground V of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1031/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 3Section 56(2)(viib)

claimed that the 60% depreciation will be applicable only in case of computer with software. Separate purchase of the software is an intangible asset and not accepted. The Ld.AR placed that the issue is squarely covered by the order of the co-ordinate bench of ITAT in assessee ... system software' but 'application software by which the appellant has got the right to use that software. The appellant has acquired only intangible asset. Hence, the appellant is eligible for depreciation at 25% as per Part B of depreciation schedule as shown in Appendix 1 of the IT. Rules

Enn Vee Holdings Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle 31, New Delhi

In the result, the addition made u/s 68 and u/s 56(2)(viib) in the case of M/s Realtime Marketing Pvt

ITA 1195/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 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, knowhow, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, whichever is higher;" Further, as per clause ... 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

DCIT, CC-31, New Delhi vs. Realtime Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the addition made u/s 68 and u/s 56(2)(viib) in the case of M/s Realtime Marketing Pvt

ITA 1839/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

The Ramco Cements Ltd., Rajapalayam vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 2, Madurai

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2196/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.957/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.958/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2196/Chny/2019 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Ramco Cements Limited Dcit बनाम (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Corporate Circle -2, Ramamandiram, / Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1274/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1363/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1897/Chny/2017 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit The Ramco Cements Limited बनाम/ Corporate Circle -2, (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Ramamandiram, Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.Prabhakar (CA) &For Respondent: Mrs. Jothi Lakshmi Nayak (CIT)-Ld.DR

culverts, bridges, railway sidings, electricity transmission lines etc., of which the assessee is not the owner are not in the nature of tangible or intangible assets and are to be regarded as revenue in nature. 9. The order of the CIT(A) is contrary to the settled legal principle that ... therefore, the expenditure was capital in nature. Further, this matter was restored by Tribunal in AY 2011-12 holding that the assessee was enjoying intangible asset. The assessee disclosed the same as an asset in the Balance Sheet. It was essential to comply with matching concept in order to arrive

ACIT Corporate Circle 2, Madurai vs. The Ramco Cements Limited, Chennai

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1897/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri J.Prabhakar (CA) &For Respondent: Mrs. Jothi Lakshmi Nayak (CIT)-Ld.DR