← 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

Roca Bathroom Products Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Ltu-1, Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 2976/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri N. V. Balaji (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. S. Palanikumar (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

disallowing the claim of depreciation on software amounting at the rate of 60 percent restricting the same to 25 percent applicable to the block 'intangible assets' amounting to INR 4.647,480. 6.1 Erred in law by disregarding the rate of depreciation prescribed under Part A (III) (5) of New Appendix

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Nadiadwala Entertainment & Technologies Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as cross-objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 5663/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Circle-16(1), M/S Nadiadwala Entertainment Room No. 439, 4Th Floor & Technologies Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Barkat, Plot No. 20, Gulmohar M.K. Road, Cross Road, No. 5, Jvpd Mumbai-400020. Scheme, Juhu Scheme, Vile Parle-West, Mumbai-400049. Pan No. Aaccn 0187 E Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Anant A. Pai, AR
Section 143(1)

investment of R8.90 crores for purchasing the distribution rights of the film. purchasing the distribution rights of the film. Distribution rights rights are intangible asset, hence, investment of assessee are intangible asset, hence, investment of assessee was for purchasing an intangible asset which was a capital was for purchasing ... intangible asset which was a capital was for purchasing an intangible asset which was a capital asset. Film was released on 12.08.2011, therefore, on date asset. Film was released on 12.08.2011, therefore, on date asset. Film was released on 12.08.2011, therefore, on date of release of film distribution rights were

Tech Mahindra Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result we are not inclined to interfere in the order of Ld

ITA 6256/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyaltech Mahindra Limited, C/O Marriott Hotels India Pvt. Ltd. Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai-400001 Pan: Aaacm3484F ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit-2(3), Room No. 552, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Acit Circle-2(3)(1), Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400020. ..... Appellant Vs. Tech Mahindra Limited, C/O Marriott Hotels India Pvt. Ltd. Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai-400001 Pan: Aaacm3484F ..... Respondent Appellant/Assessee By : Sh. J.D. Mistri / Sh. Harsh Kapadia Respondent/Revenue By : Sh. K.C. Kanojia- Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sh. J.D. Mistri / Sh. Harsh KapadiaFor Respondent: Sh. K.C. Kanojia- CIT-DR
Section 10(34)Section 10ASection 14ASection 234BSection 250Section 32(1)

total value of investments as on the first day and last day of the previous year. 2. Ground No. 2- Disallowance of Depreciation on intangible assets (being upfront payment of discount and exclusivity payment): 3 ITA No. 6256 & 6401/Mum/2016-Tech Mahindra Limited 2.1 On the facts and in the circumstances ... allowable exemption is Rs. 5, 32, 17, 84,537/-. The exemption has increased due to fact that Rs. 122,19,01,296/- depreciation on intangible asset is disallowed and added to the profit of the units, as the total of exemption claimed by assessee u/s 10AA

Subex Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 282/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 92C(3)Section 92DSection 9A(3)

Rs.262.84 million, was mainly on account of acquisition of various IPs during the year and the same is shown in the intangible Asset Schedule of the consolidated financial statement at page115 as under: - (Intangible assets of Group 2012-13) 8.5 The ld DR stated that all these clearly show that ... revenue. Further, the capital expenditure towards R&D was only Nil, which clearly show that the R&D activities are routine. The value of intangible assets as on 31-3-2017 was only Rs.222.04 million (page 236 of the annual report) constituting 1.28% of operating revenue. The intangible assets

Mindteck (India) Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 211/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R
Section 143(3)

incurred any expenditure towards R&D and technology absorption. On perusal of the fixed assets schedule, the ld DRP observed that there are no intangible assets. The information given under the head revenue recognition as Note 25 mentions that the revenue is earned from service transactions. Therefore, the company ... assessee referred to an extract from page 44 of the Annual report (Page 831 of Annual Report Compilation) extracted below shows existence of intangible assets: 15.2 He further referred page 65 of the annual report (Page 853 of Annual Report Compilation) which states the class of the intangible assets

Finastra Software Solutions (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 268/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 268/Bang/2021 (Assessment Year: 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80G

licenses and subscription fees worth Rs. 18.89 lakhs, whereas the Assessee had not incurred any expenses in such nature. The company further owned significant intangible assets as during FY 2013-14 to 2015- 16. Despite being engaged in such diversified activities, which are in the nature of high-end software ... repairs and insurance of plant, machinery and furniture • Section 32 provides for depreciation on tangible assets like building, machinery, plant, furniture and also on intangible assets like know-how, patents, trademarks, licenses. • Section 33 allows development rebate on machinery, plants and ships. • Section 34 states conditions for depreciation and development

Jm Morgan Stanley Securities P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 4(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 7118/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M. LalaFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 40Section 40A(2)

further erred in confirming the proposed addition on account of disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 10,45,624 on other intangible assets. The Appellant therefore prays that the learned AO may be directed to delete the disallowance of depreciation on other intangible assets and modify the impugned assessment order, accordingly ... No.7118/Mum./2010 21. The issue arising in ground No. 4, raised in assessee’s appeal, is pertaining to the disallowance of depreciation on other intangible assets. 22. The brief facts of the case as emanating from the record are: During the year under consideration, the assessee claimed depreciation

Mahavir Ghar Sansar Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 1(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 141/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 141/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Ito-1(1)(1), Mahavir Ghar Sansar Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Private Limited, बिधम/ Road, Mumbai-400 020 19 Raj Mahal, 84, Veer Vs. Nariman Road, Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaacs7170C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Mahita Nair, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 22.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 18.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 01.12.2021, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 263 For Ay 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mahita Nair, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 32(1)(ii)

National Faceless Appeal Centre) erred in confirming the disallowance of depreciation amounting to Rs. 5,90,759/- on goodwill claimed by your appellant on Intangible Asset as contemplated u/s 32(1)(ii) of I.T Act, 1961, without appreciating the facts that your appellant has paid for the goodwill ... Income-tax Act. The Assessing Officer accepted the slump sale and also allowed depreciation on goodwill by treating the same as intangible asset for the assessment year 2008-2009. In the assessment year 2013- 2014, the assessee is carrying on the business acquired by way of slump sale

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Pentasoft Technologies Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1248/CHNY/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1158/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2001-02 M/S.Pentasoft Technologies Ltd., V. The Ito (Osd)/The Acit, No.1, First Main Road, Company Circle-V(2), United India Colony, Chennai. Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024. [Pan: Aaacp 1895 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.I. Dinesh, AdvFor Respondent: Dr.S.Palanikumar, CIT

case for the AY 2002-03 in ITA No.1540/Mds/2006, had considered an identical issue and after considering relevant facts held that IPRs are intangible assets entitled for depreciation u/s.32(1)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also by following the decision

Pentasoft Technologies Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO (OSD), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1158/CHNY/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1158/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2001-02 M/S.Pentasoft Technologies Ltd., V. The Ito (Osd)/The Acit, No.1, First Main Road, Company Circle-V(2), United India Colony, Chennai. Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024. [Pan: Aaacp 1895 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.I. Dinesh, AdvFor Respondent: Dr.S.Palanikumar, CIT

case for the AY 2002-03 in ITA No.1540/Mds/2006, had considered an identical issue and after considering relevant facts held that IPRs are intangible assets entitled for depreciation u/s.32(1)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also by following the decision

M/S Alcon Laboratories India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 3376/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.2889/Bang/2017 It(Tp)A No.3376/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 143(3)

deriving revenue from sale of products and services. Segmental data for products and services is not available e) Infosys brand is a key intangible asset of the company f) Infosys has spent INR 88 crores in brand building. g) As per the report of Brand Finance, the brand value ... generally acceptable tolerable limit of 3% of the total revenue. It is further seen by the Ld. DRP that the value of generally acceptable intangible assets declared in the Asset schedule was Rs.13 crores. Further as per note 1.1 of the annual report, at page 50, software product developments costs

Alcon Laboratories (India0 Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 2889/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.2889/Bang/2017 It(Tp)A No.3376/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 143(3)

deriving revenue from sale of products and services. Segmental data for products and services is not available e) Infosys brand is a key intangible asset of the company f) Infosys has spent INR 88 crores in brand building. g) As per the report of Brand Finance, the brand value ... generally acceptable tolerable limit of 3% of the total revenue. It is further seen by the Ld. DRP that the value of generally acceptable intangible assets declared in the Asset schedule was Rs.13 crores. Further as per note 1.1 of the annual report, at page 50, software product developments costs

M/S Karnataka Emta Coal Mines Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2139/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V.P. Pavan Kumar &
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35ESection 37

Fourth ground in ITA Nos.2136 & 2137/Bang/2018 for the AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13 is with regard to non-granting of depreciation on intangible assets claimed u/s 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 2.4 The fifth and last ground in ITA No.2138 & 2139/Bang/2018 ... right of entry to that land to enable it to undertake the mining activity. That right itself falls within the purview of the term intangible asset and is eligible for depreciation u/s 32 of the Act. ITA Nos.2135 to 2139/Bang/2018 M/s. Karnataka EMTA Coal Mines Ltd., Bangalore Page

M/S Karnataka Emta Coal Mines Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2138/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V.P. Pavan Kumar &
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35ESection 37

Fourth ground in ITA Nos.2136 & 2137/Bang/2018 for the AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13 is with regard to non-granting of depreciation on intangible assets claimed u/s 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 2.4 The fifth and last ground in ITA No.2138 & 2139/Bang/2018 ... right of entry to that land to enable it to undertake the mining activity. That right itself falls within the purview of the term intangible asset and is eligible for depreciation u/s 32 of the Act. ITA Nos.2135 to 2139/Bang/2018 M/s. Karnataka EMTA Coal Mines Ltd., Bangalore Page

M/S Karnataka Emta Coal Mines Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2137/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V.P. Pavan Kumar &
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35ESection 37

Fourth ground in ITA Nos.2136 & 2137/Bang/2018 for the AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13 is with regard to non-granting of depreciation on intangible assets claimed u/s 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 2.4 The fifth and last ground in ITA No.2138 & 2139/Bang/2018 ... right of entry to that land to enable it to undertake the mining activity. That right itself falls within the purview of the term intangible asset and is eligible for depreciation u/s 32 of the Act. ITA Nos.2135 to 2139/Bang/2018 M/s. Karnataka EMTA Coal Mines Ltd., Bangalore Page

M/S Karnataka Emta Coal Mines Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2136/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V.P. Pavan Kumar &
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35ESection 37

Fourth ground in ITA Nos.2136 & 2137/Bang/2018 for the AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13 is with regard to non-granting of depreciation on intangible assets claimed u/s 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 2.4 The fifth and last ground in ITA No.2138 & 2139/Bang/2018 ... right of entry to that land to enable it to undertake the mining activity. That right itself falls within the purview of the term intangible asset and is eligible for depreciation u/s 32 of the Act. ITA Nos.2135 to 2139/Bang/2018 M/s. Karnataka EMTA Coal Mines Ltd., Bangalore Page

M/S Karnataka Emta Coal Mines Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2135/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V.P. Pavan Kumar &
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35ESection 37

Fourth ground in ITA Nos.2136 & 2137/Bang/2018 for the AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13 is with regard to non-granting of depreciation on intangible assets claimed u/s 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 2.4 The fifth and last ground in ITA No.2138 & 2139/Bang/2018 ... right of entry to that land to enable it to undertake the mining activity. That right itself falls within the purview of the term intangible asset and is eligible for depreciation u/s 32 of the Act. ITA Nos.2135 to 2139/Bang/2018 M/s. Karnataka EMTA Coal Mines Ltd., Bangalore Page

M/S Dell International Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 932/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.844/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Joint Vs. M/S.Dell International Services India Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Ltu, (For The Merged Entity Dell India Bangalore. Private Limited), No.12/1, 12/2A, 13/1A, Divyashree Gardens, Challagutta Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore – 560 071. Pan : Aaach1925Q Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.932/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S.Dell International Services Vs. The Joint Commissioner India Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Ltu, (For The Merged Entity Dell India Bangalore. Private Limited), Bangalore – 560 071. Pan : Aaach1925Q Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Assessee By : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 07.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2022

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri
Section 143(2)Section 92C

increase in operating costs during the year. Further, Genesys is actively engaged in carrying out R&D and, what is more, has substantial intangible assets amounting to more than 10% of its total asset base. The fact that Genesys has diversified into other areas is amply demonstrated by the fact ... Tribunal accepted that Infosys Ltd. is a giant risk taking company and engaged in development and sale of software products and also owns intangible assets and therefore not comparable with a software development service provider such as the Assessee in that case. (b) ***** (c) ***** 30. Respectfully following the decision

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Ltu), Bangalore vs. M/S Dell International Services India Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 844/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.844/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Joint Vs. M/S.Dell International Services India Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Ltu, (For The Merged Entity Dell India Bangalore. Private Limited), No.12/1, 12/2A, 13/1A, Divyashree Gardens, Challagutta Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore – 560 071. Pan : Aaach1925Q Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.932/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S.Dell International Services Vs. The Joint Commissioner India Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Ltu, (For The Merged Entity Dell India Bangalore. Private Limited), Bangalore – 560 071. Pan : Aaach1925Q Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Assessee By : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 07.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2022

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri
Section 143(2)Section 92C

increase in operating costs during the year. Further, Genesys is actively engaged in carrying out R&D and, what is more, has substantial intangible assets amounting to more than 10% of its total asset base. The fact that Genesys has diversified into other areas is amply demonstrated by the fact ... Tribunal accepted that Infosys Ltd. is a giant risk taking company and engaged in development and sale of software products and also owns intangible assets and therefore not comparable with a software development service provider such as the Assessee in that case. (b) ***** (c) ***** 30. Respectfully following the decision

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Pentasoft Technologies Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 449/CHNY/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Nov 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.121/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S.Pentasoft Technologies Ltd., V. The Income Tax – No.1, First Main Road, Officer (Osd), United India Colony, Company Circle-V(2), Kodambakkam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 024. [Pan: Aaacp 1895 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mrs.Sree Lakshmi Valli, AdvFor Respondent: Dr.S.Palanikumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 143(3)

DCIT reported in [2014] 264 CTR 0187 (Mad), where the Hon’ble Madras High Court allowed depreciation on non-compete fee as an intangible asset in terms of sec.32(1) of the Act. 5.2 The Ld.DR, on the other hand, supporting the order of the Ld.CIT(A), submitted that ... compete fee is not an intangible asset eligible for depreciation u/s.32(1)(ii) of the Act. However, fairly agreed that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court. ITA Nos.121 & 449/Chny/2011 M/s.Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. :: 8 :: 5.3 We have heard