← 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

G A Advisory Private Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 10(1), Delhi, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3265/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganesh[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is a private limited company, engaged in valuation of tangible and intangible assets of different clients including Government & semi Government clients and the accounts of the assessee are regularly maintained and are audited as per statutory provisions

Sara Suppliers Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 432/AHD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 432/Ahd/2022 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2016-2017 Sara Suppliers Private Limited, The Asst. Commissioner Of 6, Patel Avenue, Vs. Income Tax, Near Gurudwara S.G Highway, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad-380054. Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT.D.R
Section 32(1)

approved by the Hon’ble High Court. Therefore, the claim of depreciation by it is justifiable and needs to be allowed as depreciation on intangible assets. 4.2 The AO disagreed with the contention of the assessee. As per the AO, the scheme of amalgamation duly approved ... case of Smifs Securities Ltd (supra) the question before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was limited to whether the goodwill is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under the provision of section 32(1) of the Act or not. In the case of Smifs Securities Ltd (supra), two independent entities

Shree Cement Limited, Beawar vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 500/JPR/2023[215-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

For Appellant: Sh. Dilip B Desai(C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H) &
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144B(1)(xvi)Section 80Section 80I

such facts, courts have held that such rights acquired by the assessee which is used for the purpose of its business is an intangible asset in the nature of business or commercial right. Such intangible assets being "business or commercial right" is entitled to depreciation ... being consistent to the findings so recorded by the coordinate bench on the issue in the year under consideration we note that such intangible assets being "business or commercial right" is entitled to depreciation u/s 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Hence, AO is directed to grant depreciation

Shree Cement Limited, Beawar vs. National Faceless Assessment Assessment Centre, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Ajmer

ITA 497/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024AY 2017-18
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144B(1)(xvi)Section 80Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM

Shree Cement Limited, Beawar vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Deputy Commissionerof Income Tax, Circle -2, Ajmer

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

ITA 496/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

For Appellant: Sh. Dilip B Desai(C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H) &
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144B(1)(xvi)Section 80Section 80I

such facts, courts have held that such rights acquired by the assessee which is used for the purpose of its business is an intangible asset in the nature of business or commercial right. Such intangible assets being "business or commercial right" is entitled to depreciation ... being consistent to the findings so recorded by the coordinate bench on the issue in the year under consideration we note that such intangible assets being "business or commercial right" is entitled to depreciation u/s 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Hence, AO is directed to grant depreciation

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ajmer vs. Shree Cement Ltd, Beawar

ITA 490/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024AY 2016-17
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144B(1)(xvi)Section 80Section 80I

ITA Nos. 489 to 492/JP/2023 ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. 2 These are eight cross appeals filed by the revenue

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ajmer vs. Shree Cement Ltd, Beawar

ITA 489/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Sh. Dilip B Desai(C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H) &
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144B(1)(xvi)Section 80Section 80I

ITA Nos. 489 to 492/JP/2023 ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. 1 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME

Teksystems Global Services Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as directed above

ITA 290/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Ms. Amulya K. ARFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR
Section 32

pursuant to the business agreement and the assessee recovered more than two times the consideration paid by it for the value of intangible assets in the first year of acquisition itself. Page 3 of 10 6. Learned CIT(A), however, did not agree with the assessee. In the impugned order

Kifs International LLP, Ahmedabad vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi Presently With ACIT, Central Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 684/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 682, 683 & 684/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 To 2018-19) Kifs International Llp Acit बनाम/ B-81, Pariseema Complex, Circle-5(2)(1), Vs. C. G. Road, Ellisbridge, Narayan Chambers Ahmedabad 380006 Building, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad [Presently With Acit, Central Circle 1(4), 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Ashrma Road, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaqfk2892L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Assessee By : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.Rs. Revenue By : Shri Ritesh Parmar, Cit. Dr & Shri Rajdeep Singh, Sr.Dr (On 08.11.2023) & Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Cit.Dr (On 30.01.2024) सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 08/11/2023 & 30.01.2024 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 08/02/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Bunch Of Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Dated 14.08.2023 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad (In Short ‘Cit(A)’) Arising Out Of The Orders Dated

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Parmar, CIT. DR & Shri
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 32Section 32(1)Section 43(6)

Smifs Securities Ltd, 348 ITR 302 (SC) In the case of Smits Securities Ltd., the Supreme Court held that goodwill is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under the provisions of section 32 of the IT Act. In this case 'goodwill' had arisen as a result of amalgamation ... difference is to be as recognized as goodwill or vise-versa as capital reserve. 14.5 Goodwill may be described as the aggregate of those intangible assets of a business which contributes to its superior earning capacity over a normal return on investment. It may arise from such attributes as favourable

Kifs International LLP, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-5(2)(1) Presently With ACIT, Central Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 683/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 682, 683 & 684/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 To 2018-19) Kifs International Llp Acit बनाम/ B-81, Pariseema Complex, Circle-5(2)(1), Vs. C. G. Road, Ellisbridge, Narayan Chambers Ahmedabad 380006 Building, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad [Presently With Acit, Central Circle 1(4), 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Ashrma Road, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaqfk2892L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Assessee By : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.Rs. Revenue By : Shri Ritesh Parmar, Cit. Dr & Shri Rajdeep Singh, Sr.Dr (On 08.11.2023) & Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Cit.Dr (On 30.01.2024) सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 08/11/2023 & 30.01.2024 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 08/02/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Bunch Of Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Dated 14.08.2023 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad (In Short ‘Cit(A)’) Arising Out Of The Orders Dated

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Parmar, CIT. DR & Shri
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 32Section 32(1)Section 43(6)

Smifs Securities Ltd, 348 ITR 302 (SC) In the case of Smits Securities Ltd., the Supreme Court held that goodwill is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under the provisions of section 32 of the IT Act. In this case 'goodwill' had arisen as a result of amalgamation ... difference is to be as recognized as goodwill or vise-versa as capital reserve. 14.5 Goodwill may be described as the aggregate of those intangible assets of a business which contributes to its superior earning capacity over a normal return on investment. It may arise from such attributes as favourable

Kifs International LLP, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-5(2)(1) Presently With ACIT, Central Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 682/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 682, 683 & 684/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 To 2018-19) Kifs International Llp Acit बनाम/ B-81, Pariseema Complex, Circle-5(2)(1), Vs. C. G. Road, Ellisbridge, Narayan Chambers Ahmedabad 380006 Building, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad [Presently With Acit, Central Circle 1(4), 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Ashrma Road, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaqfk2892L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Assessee By : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.Rs. Revenue By : Shri Ritesh Parmar, Cit. Dr & Shri Rajdeep Singh, Sr.Dr (On 08.11.2023) & Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Cit.Dr (On 30.01.2024) सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 08/11/2023 & 30.01.2024 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 08/02/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Bunch Of Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Dated 14.08.2023 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad (In Short ‘Cit(A)’) Arising Out Of The Orders Dated

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Parmar, CIT. DR & Shri
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 32Section 32(1)Section 43(6)

Smifs Securities Ltd, 348 ITR 302 (SC) In the case of Smits Securities Ltd., the Supreme Court held that goodwill is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under the provisions of section 32 of the IT Act. In this case 'goodwill' had arisen as a result of amalgamation ... difference is to be as recognized as goodwill or vise-versa as capital reserve. 14.5 Goodwill may be described as the aggregate of those intangible assets of a business which contributes to its superior earning capacity over a normal return on investment. It may arise from such attributes as favourable

ACIT, Circle - 1, Kumbakonam vs. M/S. Karaikal Port Pvt. Ltd., Karaikal

Appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1337/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1335/Chny/2019 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1336/Chny/2019 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1337/Chny/2019 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Acit M/S. Karaikal Port Pvt. Limited बनाम/ Circle-1, No.1, Keezhavanjore, Kumbakonam. Vs. Tr Pattinam, Pb No.33, Karaikal-609 606. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacck-8122-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar (Jcit)- Ld. Sr. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Vartik Chowksi (Ca)-Ld. Ar (Through Virtual Mode) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 08-02-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08-02-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT)- Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Vartik Chowksi (CA)-Ld. AR

matter of separate assessments framed by Ld. Assessing Officer for these years. The sole issue in the appeals is depreciation on intangible assets. 2. The Ld. AR (appearing in virtual mode), at the outset, placed on record copy of order of Hon’ble National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Division Bench

ACIT, Circle - 1, Kumbakonam vs. M/S. Karaikal Port Pvt. Ltd., Karaikal

Appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1336/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1335/Chny/2019 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1336/Chny/2019 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1337/Chny/2019 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Acit M/S. Karaikal Port Pvt. Limited बनाम/ Circle-1, No.1, Keezhavanjore, Kumbakonam. Vs. Tr Pattinam, Pb No.33, Karaikal-609 606. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacck-8122-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar (Jcit)- Ld. Sr. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Vartik Chowksi (Ca)-Ld. Ar (Through Virtual Mode) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 08-02-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08-02-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT)- Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Vartik Chowksi (CA)-Ld. AR

matter of separate assessments framed by Ld. Assessing Officer for these years. The sole issue in the appeals is depreciation on intangible assets. 2. The Ld. AR (appearing in virtual mode), at the outset, placed on record copy of order of Hon’ble National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Division Bench

ACIT Circle 1, Kumbakonam vs. M/S. Karaikal Port Pvt. Ltd., Karaikal

Appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1335/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1335/Chny/2019 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1336/Chny/2019 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1337/Chny/2019 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Acit M/S. Karaikal Port Pvt. Limited बनाम/ Circle-1, No.1, Keezhavanjore, Kumbakonam. Vs. Tr Pattinam, Pb No.33, Karaikal-609 606. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacck-8122-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar (Jcit)- Ld. Sr. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Vartik Chowksi (Ca)-Ld. Ar (Through Virtual Mode) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 08-02-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08-02-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT)- Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Vartik Chowksi (CA)-Ld. AR

matter of separate assessments framed by Ld. Assessing Officer for these years. The sole issue in the appeals is depreciation on intangible assets. 2. The Ld. AR (appearing in virtual mode), at the outset, placed on record copy of order of Hon’ble National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Division Bench

ACIT-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1995/MUM/2023[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 80I

same accounting year. Capital expenditures are funds that a company uses to acquire, improve, or maintain physical assets (land, property, equipment software) or intangible assets (patents or licenses). Capital expenditure is generally used to improve the company's capacity or efficiency. 14.1 As regard legal position on the subject

ACIT-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1994/MUM/2023[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 80I

same accounting year. Capital expenditures are funds that a company uses to acquire, improve, or maintain physical assets (land, property, equipment software) or intangible assets (patents or licenses). Capital expenditure is generally used to improve the company's capacity or efficiency. 14.1 As regard legal position on the subject

DCIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Water Health Inida P.Ltd, Andhra Pradesh

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4912/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Aby T. Varkey (Jm)

Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35D

issue urged by the Revenue is whether the Ld CIT(A) was correct in holding that “Right to operate community water system” is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. We noticed from the record ... assessee, the Assessing 2 M/s. Water Health India Pvt. Ltd. Officer noticed that the assessee has disclosed a sum of Rs. 28.14 crores as intangible asset. Further it was seen that the assessee has amortized a sum of Rs. 2.42 crores out of the intangible asset and claimed the same

Roadstar Investment Mangers Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 14 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground No.1 of the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3311/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Roadstar Investment The Assistant Managers Ltd. Commissioner Of Income Plot No.C-22, G Block, Tax, Circle 14(1)(1) Vs. Bkc, Bandra (East), Room No.432, Mumbai – 400 051 Aaykar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Bhupal Rapelli &For Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 80I

claim of allowance of depreciation at the rate of 25% treating to right to collect the toll on the road under the category as intangible asset under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Vide Para No.5.3, the Ld. CIT (A) did not admit the same holding that this ... appeal hence, it was dismissed. 3. Assessee is aggrieved by the same and claims that right to collect toll on the roads is an intangible assets on which depreciation at the rate of 25% should be allowed. In the grounds of appeal, itself the Assessee has stated that the Assessee

M/S Jr Fiber Glass Industries Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2848/MUM/2023[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2848/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Jr Fiber Glass Industries Pvt. Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (Sr. AR)
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 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: (b) Venture capital ... 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: (d)Venture capital

ITO, Ward-3(1)(3), Bangalore, Koramangala vs. Irunway India Pvt Ltd, Banaglore

ITA 676/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 56Section 56(2)(viib)

ITA No.676/Bang/2023 & CO 5/Bang/2023 Irunway India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI