“intangible assets”

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Ireo Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

Accounting for fixed Assets, Accounting Standard (AS) 12, Accounting for Government Grants, Accounting Standard (AS) 19, Leases, and Accounting Standard (AS) 26, Intangible Assets, are outside the scope of this Guidance Note. 1.5 This Guidance Note should be applied to all projects in real estate which are commenced

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ireo Waterfront Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

Accounting for fixed Assets, Accounting Standard (AS) 12, Accounting for Government Grants, Accounting Standard (AS) 19, Leases, and Accounting Standard (AS) 26, Intangible Assets, are outside the scope of this Guidance Note. 1.5 This Guidance Note should be applied to all projects in real estate which are commenced

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ireo Waterfront Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

Accounting for fixed Assets, Accounting Standard (AS) 12, Accounting for Government Grants, Accounting Standard (AS) 19, Leases, and Accounting Standard (AS) 26, Intangible Assets, are outside the scope of this Guidance Note. 1.5 This Guidance Note should be applied to all projects in real estate which are commenced

ACIT Circle-10(1), New Delhi vs. Gamma Pizzakraft (Overseas) Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

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

ACIT, Circle- 20(2), New Delhi vs. Rcube Projects Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharma Ita No. 6879/Del/2018, A.Y. 2015-16

accounts. It is seen that in returns-of-income, assessees are generally claiming depreciation on such capitalized expenditure treating it as an ‘intangible asset' in terms of section 32(l)(ii) of the Act while in assessments, such claims are being disallowed by the Assessing officer on the grounds that ... taxpayer which is an essential condition for claiming depreciation and further right to collect toll does not fall in any of the categories of 'intangible assets' specified in sub- cause(ii) of sub-section (1) of section 32 of the Act. In BOT arrangements for development of 3. roads/highways

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Rampgreen Solutions Pvt. Ltd., (Erstwhile Vcostomer Services India Pvt. Ltd), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

During the year under consideration, this company has made payment of Rs. 2.60 crore towards use of Tata brand for royalty. (Pg.524/FS II) (c) Intangible assets. This company is having huge assets base of Rs. 380.29 crore which includes software license of Rs. 33.76 crore. During the year under consideration ... case for assessment year 2010-11 and also keeping in view various decisions and contentions raised by the assessee on functionality, brand value, intangible assets, extraordinary economic events pointed out in the assessment year under consideration as stated above and decide for the purpose of exclusion/ inclusion from the final

M/S. Rampgreen Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

During the year under consideration, this company has made payment of Rs. 2.60 crore towards use of Tata brand for royalty. (Pg.524/FS II) (c) Intangible assets. This company is having huge assets base of Rs. 380.29 crore which includes software license of Rs. 33.76 crore. During the year under consideration ... case for assessment year 2010-11 and also keeping in view various decisions and contentions raised by the assessee on functionality, brand value, intangible assets, extraordinary economic events pointed out in the assessment year under consideration as stated above and decide for the purpose of exclusion/ inclusion from the final

ACIT, Circle- 2, Ltu, New Delhi vs. Gkn Driveline (India) Ltd., Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

payment arises and he was of the opinion that royalty and trademark fee paid by the assessee after allowing depreciation of 25% on the intangible assets has to be disallowed. Hence, AO made disallowance of Rs.8,65,51,430/-. 4. Upon assessee’s appeal, ld. CIT (A) found that

Dcm Shriram Industries Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-7(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2017-18 With Assessment Year 2016-17 With Assessment Year 2015-16

inventories of the generating entities as they are generated and held for the purpose of sale in ordinary course. Even though CERs are intangible assets those should be accounted as per AS-2 (Valuation of inventories) at a cost or market price, whichever is lower. Since CERs are recognised

Dcm Shriram Industries Ltd, New Delhi vs. Addi. CIT National E - Assesment Centre, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2017-18 With Assessment Year 2016-17 With Assessment Year 2015-16

inventories of the generating entities as they are generated and held for the purpose of sale in ordinary course. Even though CERs are intangible assets those should be accounted as per AS-2 (Valuation of inventories) at a cost or market price, whichever is lower. Since CERs are recognised

Dcm Shriram Industries Ltd, New Delhi vs. Addi. CIT Special Range-3, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2017-18 With Assessment Year 2016-17 With Assessment Year 2015-16

inventories of the generating entities as they are generated and held for the purpose of sale in ordinary course. Even though CERs are intangible assets those should be accounted as per AS-2 (Valuation of inventories) at a cost or market price, whichever is lower. Since CERs are recognised

DCIT, Circle-14(2), New Delhi vs. Kissandhan Agri Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

between the working as per Rule 11UA (DC method) or on the basis of the value of shares considering the market value of assets, intangible assets and projected profit (NAV method). 7.5 In the present case, the working given by the appellant has been based on the value

DCIT, Circle-19(2), New Delhi vs. Pawan Hans Ltd., Noida

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of claim of intangible assets amounting to Rs. 1,26,64,778/-. ITA No. 6441/Del/2017, 2 Pawan Hans Ltd 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... year under consideration the assessee has incurred Rs. 1,57,05,972/- for the training of air and ground crew and treated it as intangible asset in the return filed under section 139(1). The AO treated this expenditure as creation of intangible asset and allowed 1/5th of the expenditure

Addl.CIT, Special Range- 7, New Delhi vs. Pawan Hans Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of claim of intangible assets amounting to Rs. 1,26,64,778/-. ITA No. 6441/Del/2017, 2 Pawan Hans Ltd 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... year under consideration the assessee has incurred Rs. 1,57,05,972/- for the training of air and ground crew and treated it as intangible asset in the return filed under section 139(1). The AO treated this expenditure as creation of intangible asset and allowed 1/5th of the expenditure

Planet Gogo Private Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward-3(2), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2016-17

company to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer based on the value on the date of issue of shares or its assets including intangible assets, whichever is higher. Rule 11UA, prescribes the method for determination of fair market value. It is nobody’s case that the valuation of shares ... 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

Srf Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl CIT, New Delhi

In the result, this ground of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Ussrf Limited Vs. Acit Unitech Crest, Greenwood Range – 9, City Block – C, Sector – 45, Ltu, New Delhi Gurgaon – 122 003 Pan No. Aaacs 0206 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep Dinodia, Shri R. K. Kapoor C.A. Shri Ravi Kumar Revenue By Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit (Dr) Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10/01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Dated 27.09.2016 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-44, New Delhi [For Short, Cit(A)] Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [For Short, 'The Act'] For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under:-

inventories of the generating entities as they are generated and held for the purpose of sale in ordinary course. Even though CERs are intangible assets those should be accounted as per AS-2 (Valuation of inventories) at a cost or market price, whichever is lower. Since CERs are recognised ... Tribunal own case for A.Ys. 2012- 13 & 2013-14 wherein the Hon’ble Tribunal has upheld that goodwill to be an intangible assets and eligible for depreciation and had granted depreciation. He, therefore, submitted that assessee is eligible for deprecation on goodwill and the same should be allowed

DCIT, Circle-19(2), New Delhi vs. Personiv Contact Centres India Pvt Ltd ( Formely Known As John Keels Bpo Solutions Pvt. Ltd.), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

depreciation @60% claimed by the assessee on Aspect license-SW kit phone i.e. computer license, as the right to use the license is an intangible asset on which depreciation is allowable @ 25% and not 60% as claimed by the assessee? 3. Brief facts of the case are that ... contention that assessee has taken license which allows the assessee to use that particular right on payment of certain amount and that being an intangible asset on which depreciation is allowable @ 25% only. Ld. CIT (A) noted that ld. CIT (A) in AY 2013-14 vide order (supra) in assessee

Livpure P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-5, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2014-15

Assessee to provide the details of the expenses and to explain why these expenses should not be treated as expenditure towards acquisition of intangible assets being “capital expenditure”. 3.1 In response, the Assessee claimed as under: “The assessee has been issued show cause on proposed addition on account of expenditure ... incurred any expenditure which is of capital nature. The expenses incurred by the assessee are of 3 revenue nature. No tangible or intangible asset of enduring nature has been created. The expenditure incurred on advertisements as well as sales promotion schemes is to facilitate the trading operations or enabling

Bsc C&C Kurali Toll Road Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-5(1), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

while confirming depreciation on Toll Road developed by the appellant @ 10% instead of the claim of the appellant of depreciation @ 25% under the head Intangible Assets. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. Commissioner of Income (Appeals) has erred while not directing ... with regard to availability of depreciation to the assessee whether it is to be allowed keeping the right to collect toll fee as intangible assets or it to be treated as building or plant & machinery as held in the decision relied by the Ld.CIT(A) rendered in the case