← 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

Diadora Shoes Pvt Ltd, Calicut vs. ACIT Circle 2(1), Calicut

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 92/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Anil Kumar Dugar, Jm

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 250Section 32(1)(iia)

furniture, being tangible assets; (ii) know-how, patents, copyrights, trade marks, 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

Genpact Services Llc, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-1(3)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1833/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Genpact Services Llc, Vs. Acit, Plot No. 22A & B, Circle-1(3)(1), Sector-18, Udyog Vihar, International Taxation, Gurgaon, Haryana New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccg3353P

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 92C

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in not granting the depreciation allowance of Rs.73,95,017 towards the intangible assets (being customer contracts as well as assembled workforce.” 17. We find that in AY 2010-11 this Tribunal in assessee’s own case vide ... towards acquisition of customer contracts and assembled workforce, is in the nature of capital expenditure and hence the same should have been capitalised as intangible assets by the Appellant. Accordingly, the sum of Rs.22, 16,00,276 was added back to the returned income of the Appellant and a corresponding

Pingash Marketing Private Limited, Ballabhgarh vs. ITO Ward-2(1), Faridabad

In the result, Appeals in ITA No

ITA 99/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No.84/Del/2021, A.Y.2016-17)

Section 143(1)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 52(2)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

Gopesh Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., Ballabhgarh vs. ITO Ward-1(3), Faridabad

In the result, Appeals in ITA No

ITA 98/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No.84/Del/2021, A.Y.2016-17)

Section 143(1)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 52(2)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

Vidhi Cinemas Pvt.Ltd., Haryana vs. ITO Ward-2(5), Faridabad

In the result, Appeals in ITA No

ITA 88/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No.84/Del/2021, A.Y.2016-17)

Section 143(1)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 52(2)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

Zhilmil Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Haryana vs. ITO Ward-2(5), Faridabad

In the result, Appeals in ITA No

ITA 87/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No.84/Del/2021, A.Y.2016-17)

Section 143(1)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 52(2)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

Shanta Blankets Pvt. Ltd., Haryana vs. ITO Ward-2(3), Faridabad

In the result, Appeals in ITA No

ITA 84/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No.84/Del/2021, A.Y.2016-17)

Section 143(1)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 52(2)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

Apeejay Surrendra Park Hotels Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed and for Assessment Year 2015-16 is allowed

ITA 109/KOL/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Apr 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 108 & 109/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Apeejay Surendra Park Hotels Deputy Commissioner Of Income Ltd. Vs Tax, Circle-8(1), Kolkata Apeejay House 15, Park Street Kolkata - 700016 [Pan : Aaacb7961L] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, A/R Revenue By : Shri Raman Garg, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/01/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeals Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Evenly Dt. 15/12/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16. 2. From Perusal Of The Grounds, We Notice That The Common Issue Raised For Assessment Year 2014-15 & 2015-16 Is Against The Disallowance Of Interest On Borrowed Funds Amounting To Rs.1,68,49,059/- & Rs.2,10,46,564/- Respectively, Treating Them As Capital Expenditure.

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Raman Garg, Addl. CIT, D/R
Section 250

close of the current year is Rs.29.21 Crores as against Rs.26.36 Crores as on 31/03/2015. So, there is increase in the CWIP of intangible assets by Rs.2.86Crores approx. We also notice that the equity share capital and accumulated reserve and surplus as on 31/03/2016 stood at Rs.607.08 Crores. Considering

Apeejay Surrendra Park Hotels Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed and for Assessment Year 2015-16 is allowed

ITA 108/KOL/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Apr 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 108 & 109/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Apeejay Surendra Park Hotels Deputy Commissioner Of Income Ltd. Vs Tax, Circle-8(1), Kolkata Apeejay House 15, Park Street Kolkata - 700016 [Pan : Aaacb7961L] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, A/R Revenue By : Shri Raman Garg, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/01/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeals Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Evenly Dt. 15/12/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16. 2. From Perusal Of The Grounds, We Notice That The Common Issue Raised For Assessment Year 2014-15 & 2015-16 Is Against The Disallowance Of Interest On Borrowed Funds Amounting To Rs.1,68,49,059/- & Rs.2,10,46,564/- Respectively, Treating Them As Capital Expenditure.

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Raman Garg, Addl. CIT, D/R
Section 250

close of the current year is Rs.29.21 Crores as against Rs.26.36 Crores as on 31/03/2015. So, there is increase in the CWIP of intangible assets by Rs.2.86Crores approx. We also notice that the equity share capital and accumulated reserve and surplus as on 31/03/2016 stood at Rs.607.08 Crores. Considering

Diadora Shoes Pvt Ltd, Calicut vs. ACIT Circle 2(1), Calicut

In the result, the assessee’sappeal is allowed

ITA 213/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasdiadora Shoes Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Cit, Circle - 2 Vkc Tower, Kolathra P.O Calicut 673001 Vs. Calicut 673655 [Pan:Aabcd9692D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Venugopal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

furniture, being tangible assets; (ii) know-how, patents, copyrights, trade marks, 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-5(4), Mumbai vs. Perfect Engineering Products Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned AO is dismissed

ITA 3054/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Perfect Engineering Products Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income 1101/1, Viraj Tower, Tax, Central Circle 5(4) Junction Of Andheri Kurla Room No. 1927, 19 Th Floor, Road, Vs. Air India Building Nariman Point Western Express Highway Mumbai-400 021 Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp6180E Assessee By : Ms. Mamta Gada, Ar Revenue By : Shri H.M. Bhatt, Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024

For Appellant: Ms. Mamta Gada, ARFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt, DR
Section 14Section 143Section 14ASection 14A(1)Section 37

found that assessee company has shown an addition of ₹ 27,022,304/– as research and development expenditure treating it as capital expenditure as intangible assets i.e. development expenditure. However as per the computation of total income filed by the assessee it has claimed the entire expenditure as deduction under section

M/S Neel Metal Products Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5083/DEL/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 32

action of the AO in disallowing expenditure of Rs. 35,69,931/- on account of technical I.T.A. No.5083/Del/2010 2 assistance/know-how, treating the same as intangible asset.” 3. The assessee has also raised the additional ground of appeal whereby the jurisdiction assumed under Section 147/148 has been challenged. The additional ground ... provides that with effect from 1998, the know-how, copy right, trade-mark, license, franchises or commercial rights are intangible assets, and therefore, depreciation @ 25% is applicable and 75% of Rs. 47,59,908/- i.e. Rs.35,69,931/- is disaliowable. Assessee has also claimed depreciation @ 60% on UPS and printers

Alcatel Lucent India Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-15, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1447/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

annual report of the comparable, it is observed that it has incurred sales promotion and marketing expenses and also owns plant, equipment and other intangible assets which presupposes that it is a full risk bearing entity unlike the assessee which is more or less a no risk-entity. Therefore

Chimera Industrial and Development Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed in the terms

ITA 2332/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang () & Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

For Appellant: a) Disallowance of depreciation on goodwill
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234B

reasons mentioned by the AO for reopening of the assessment of AY 2015-16 is that there was excess claim of depreciation on the intangible assets. The intangible assets consisted of Good Will and other Intangible assets under development. Chimera Industrial & Development ... Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smifs Securities Limited (2012) 348 ITR 0302 holds that goodwill is included in definition of intangible asset being any other business or commercial right of similar nature. However, the issue of goodwill arising out of the valuation done for the purpose

Chimera Industrial and Development Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Mumbai

ITA 2331/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang () & Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

For Appellant: a) Disallowance of depreciation on goodwill
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234B

reasons mentioned by the AO for reopening of the assessment of AY 2015-16 is that there was excess claim of depreciation on the intangible assets. The intangible assets consisted of Good Will and other Intangible assets under development. 5.2 In AY 2016-17, i.e., the year under consideration

Apeejay Surrendra Park Hotel Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T, Cir-8(1), Kol, Kolkata

Accordingly, relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the disallowance of Rs.69,970/- is deleted. Ground No. 3 raised for Assessment Year 2017-18 is allowed

ITA 373/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 372 & 373/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Apeejay Surendra Park Hotels Deputy Commissioner Of Income Ltd. Vs Tax, Circle-8(1), Kolkata Apeejay House 15, Park Street Kolkata - 700016 [Pan : Aaacb7961L] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwary, A/R Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/03/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeals Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Evenly Dt. 28/02/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Years 2016-17 & 2017-18. 2. The First Common Ground Raised By The Assessee For Both The Assessment Years Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Disallowing Interest On Borrowed Funds. For The Sake Of Convenience, Facts In Respect Of This Issue Is Taken From Ita No. 372/Kol/2023; Assessment Year 2016-17. 2

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwary, A/RFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, D/R
Section 143(2)Section 250

there is 4 I.T.A. Nos. 372 & 373/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Apeejay Surendra Park Hotels Ltd. increase in the CWIP of intangible assets by Rs.2.86Crores approx. We also notice that the equity share capital and accumulated reserve and surplus as on 31/03/2016 stood at Rs.607.08 Crores. Considering

Apeejay Surrendra Park Hotels Ltd, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T, Circle-8(1), Kolkata

Accordingly, relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the disallowance of Rs.69,970/- is deleted. Ground No. 3 raised for Assessment Year 2017-18 is allowed

ITA 372/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 372 & 373/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Apeejay Surendra Park Hotels Deputy Commissioner Of Income Ltd. Vs Tax, Circle-8(1), Kolkata Apeejay House 15, Park Street Kolkata - 700016 [Pan : Aaacb7961L] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwary, A/R Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/03/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeals Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Evenly Dt. 28/02/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Years 2016-17 & 2017-18. 2. The First Common Ground Raised By The Assessee For Both The Assessment Years Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Disallowing Interest On Borrowed Funds. For The Sake Of Convenience, Facts In Respect Of This Issue Is Taken From Ita No. 372/Kol/2023; Assessment Year 2016-17. 2

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwary, A/RFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, D/R
Section 143(2)Section 250

there is 4 I.T.A. Nos. 372 & 373/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Apeejay Surendra Park Hotels Ltd. increase in the CWIP of intangible assets by Rs.2.86Crores approx. We also notice that the equity share capital and accumulated reserve and surplus as on 31/03/2016 stood at Rs.607.08 Crores. Considering

Publics Communications P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 7(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground 2 is allowed and ground 3 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 588/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal() & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 199

should be allowed depreciation of Rs. 82.635 on written down value of business and commercial rights of Rs. 3,30.542 in the nature of intangible assets acquired pursuant to merger with AAPL. 2 : 3 The DRP has erred in not issuing directions in connection with the objections regarding disallowance ... assessee has acquired the business of CAPL as a going concern and the consideration paid is towards acquiring the assets and liabilities which include intangible assets such as patents, trade marks, customers etc. The Ld.AR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT

The Incoda, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 30, Kolkata

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

ITA 1304/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

made by the A.O. of Rs. 71,78,052/- by treating Commercial rights to display advertisement on Police Booth as Plant & Machinery instead of intangible assets. 2. Without prejudice to the above, the revenue authorities be directed to treat the entire cost of Traffic Console Booths as revenue expenditure ... serving of notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act. The reason for selecting the case for limited scrutiny was introduction of intangible asset during the year. While examining the said issue, ld. AO observed that the assessee has claimed depreciation at the rate

M/S. Spectris Technologies (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1818/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manish Kumar Dabas, Sr. DR

losses in the AMC business” “3. The assessee, Spectris India utilizes tangible assets for carrying out the above functions. However, with respect to intangible assets, it is stated that Spectris India uses the intangibles provided by the AE. It is also stated that the assessee performs after- sales services