“intangible assets”

Addl CIT RG 7(1), Mumbai vs. Piramal Enterprises Ltd (Formerly Knwon As Piramal Healthcare Ltd) (As Ultimate Successor to Nicholas Piramal India Ltd), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Piramal Enterprises Dy. Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known Income Tax, As Piramal Healthcare Range-8(2)(1), Limited) (Earlier Known As Mumbai. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.), Vs. Piramal Tower, Agastya Corporate Park, Lbs Marg, Kamani Junction, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400 070 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Piramal Enterprises Income Tax, Limited (Formerly Known Circle-8(2)(1), As Piramal Healthcare [Erstwhile Dcit Circle- Ltd.) (As Ultimate 7(1)], Successor To Nicholas Vs. Mumbai. Piramal India Ltd.), Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent)

expenses and has enduring quality and long term benefits. 2. In doing so, he has treated the aforesaid expenditure as expenditure for acquisition of intangible assets. 3. He failed to appreciate and ought to have held that these expenses are related to software support for existing software systems ... thereby disallowing excess depreciation of Rs.2,12,15,269/- on the alleged ground that software purchased separately and independent from computer purchases amounts to "intangible assets". 2. He failed to appreciate and ought to have held that software purchases are for upgrading the computers and for using computers with latest

Piramal Healthcare Ltd ( Earlier Knownas Nicholas Piramal India Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 7(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Piramal Enterprises Dy. Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known Income Tax, As Piramal Healthcare Range-8(2)(1), Limited) (Earlier Known As Mumbai. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.), Vs. Piramal Tower, Agastya Corporate Park, Lbs Marg, Kamani Junction, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400 070 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Piramal Enterprises Income Tax, Limited (Formerly Known Circle-8(2)(1), As Piramal Healthcare [Erstwhile Dcit Circle- Ltd.) (As Ultimate 7(1)], Successor To Nicholas Vs. Mumbai. Piramal India Ltd.), Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent)

expenses and has enduring quality and long term benefits. 2. In doing so, he has treated the aforesaid expenditure as expenditure for acquisition of intangible assets. 3. He failed to appreciate and ought to have held that these expenses are related to software support for existing software systems ... thereby disallowing excess depreciation of Rs.2,12,15,269/- on the alleged ground that software purchased separately and independent from computer purchases amounts to "intangible assets". 2. He failed to appreciate and ought to have held that software purchases are for upgrading the computers and for using computers with latest

Quess Corp Limited (Successor to Aravon Services Pvt Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 9(1)(2), Mumbai

ought to have allowed depreciation on Goodwill amounting to Rs. 2,47,92,333/- as the same is allowable U/s 32(1) when the intangible assets were acquired and paid in past years. Honourable ITAT Mumbai 'A' Bench has allowed depreciation on Goodwill in the assessee's own case ... goodwill amounting to Rs. 3,03,70,514/- without appreciating the fact that depreciation on goodwill is allowable u/s 32(1) as an intangible asset of any other business or commercial rights of similar nature. The Ld. AR, further submitted that although, the assessee has written of goodwill in books

Varian Medical Systems International(India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle-3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

solutions, enterprise application services, re-engineering and enhancements, application integration and maintenance. The Assessee also submitted that Saven Technologies Ltd. Also holds significant Intangible Assets which is not similar to the software development services provided by the Assessee on Contract basis. Considering the aforesaid submission, the Assessee prays that Saven

ACIT-2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. J K Shah Education Pvt Ltd, Mumbai City

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

depreciation on teaching system and methods of Rs.4,47,00,000/- in spite of the fact that the assessee has reduced the amount of intangible assets from the books from F.Y. 2013-14 and continued to claims depreciation on intangible assets as per Income Tax Act? 2. Whether ... case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in giving relief to the assessee by allowing the claim of depreciation on intangible assets whereas the individual Mr. J.K. Shah and the company are related parties and the company has itself written off all the intangible assets in A.Y.2013-14

ACIT-2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. J K Shah Education Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

depreciation on teaching system and methods of Rs.4,47,00,000/- in spite of the fact that the assessee has reduced the amount of intangible assets from the books from F.Y. 2013-14 and continued to claims depreciation on intangible assets as per Income Tax Act? 2. Whether ... case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in giving relief to the assessee by allowing the claim of depreciation on intangible assets whereas the individual Mr. J.K. Shah and the company are related parties and the company has itself written off all the intangible assets in A.Y.2013-14

ACIT-2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. J K Shah Education Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

depreciation on teaching system and methods of Rs.4,47,00,000/- in spite of the fact that the assessee has reduced the amount of intangible assets from the books from F.Y. 2013-14 and continued to claims depreciation on intangible assets as per Income Tax Act? 2. Whether ... case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in giving relief to the assessee by allowing the claim of depreciation on intangible assets whereas the individual Mr. J.K. Shah and the company are related parties and the company has itself written off all the intangible assets in A.Y.2013-14

ACIT-2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. J K Shah Education Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

depreciation on teaching system and methods of Rs.4,47,00,000/- in spite of the fact that the assessee has reduced the amount of intangible assets from the books from F.Y. 2013-14 and continued to claims depreciation on intangible assets as per Income Tax Act? 2. Whether ... case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in giving relief to the assessee by allowing the claim of depreciation on intangible assets whereas the individual Mr. J.K. Shah and the company are related parties and the company has itself written off all the intangible assets in A.Y.2013-14

DCIT 3(2)92), Mumbai vs. M/S Pnp Martitime Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

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;” 9. Undisputedly, Explanation

Pnp Maritime Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 3 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

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;” 9. Undisputedly, Explanation

Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2241/Ahd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Vodafone India Services बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle- Pvt. Ltd. 4(1)(2) Vs. Indiabulls Finance Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Room 1201, 12Th Floor, Tower-1, No.209, Pratyaksh Kar Senapati Bapat Road, Bhavan, Near Elphinstone (West), Polytechnic, Ambawadi, Mumbai-400013. Ahmedabad-380015. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz1849D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Fereshte Sethna (Adv) Revenue By: Letter Dated 11.10.2023 सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/12/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Company Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad Dated 31.08.2018, Arising Out Of The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3)/144C(13) Dated 05.12.2014 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. In The Several Grounds Raised In The Appeal, The Sole Grievance Of The Appellant Is Against The Action Of The Ao/Ld. Cit(A) In Not Allowing The Depreciation Claimed On Goodwill.

excess consideration paid over the value of tangible assets and liabilities was nomenclatured as "business and commercial brand equity" which was reported as intangible asset and accordingly the assessee is noted to have claimed depreciation under section 32 of the Act. Before the AO, the assessee is noted to have ... however denied the claim of depreciation for the reason that the company could not produce any of the details viz., the specific nature of intangible assets acquired on purchase of the business along with valuation attributable to Intangible asset. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) is noted to have allowed