← 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

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

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

ITA 121/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

Fireeye Cybersecurity Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 292/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 292/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Mandiant Cyber Security Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Fireeye The Deputy Cybersecurity Pvt. Commissioner Of Ltd.), Income Tax, No. 5, Front Wing Circle – 3(1)(1), Salarpuria Infinity, Vs. Bengaluru. 2Nd Floor, Bannerghatta Road, Bengaluru – 560 029. Pan: Aaccf1341A Appellant Respondent : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Assessee By Senior Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vilas Shinde, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Order Passed By National E- Assessment Centre, Delhi Dated 30/04/2021 On Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal:

For Respondent: Shri T. Suryanarayana

activities. The tangible assets employed in FireEye India are considered essential for running the business. FireEye India does not own any non-routine valuable intangible assets. Tangible & Intangible assets owned by FireEye India Net Block as on 31 Particulars March 2016 Computer equipments 141,527,905 Computer equipments — appliances

DCIT-Ltu - 2, Mumbai vs. Ambuja Cements Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2958/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 14A

ITA Nos. 1889 and 1241/Mum/2018, 2384, 2958, 3475 and 3843/Mum/2019 Assessment years: 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 Page

DCIT (Ltu) 1, Mumbai vs. Ambuja Cements Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is thus dismissed

ITA 3307/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2008-09
Section 115JSection 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

ITA Nos.2968/Mum/2015 & 1665/Mum/2019 ITA Nos. 3307/Mum/2015 & 2428/Mum/2019 Assessment years: 2008-09 and 2009-10 Page 1 of 51 THE INCOME

Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai vs. Ambuja Cements Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6405/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2007-08
Section 143(3)Section 28

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

Ambuja Cements Ltd ( Formerly Known As Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is thus dismissed

ITA 2428/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2006-07
Section 115JSection 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

ITA Nos.2968/Mum/2015 & 1665/Mum/2019 ITA Nos. 3307/Mum/2015 & 2428/Mum/2019 Assessment years: 2008-09 and 2009-10 Page 1 of 51 THE INCOME

Infiniti Retail Ltd, Mumbai vs. Chief CIT (OSD) (I/C. Pr. CIT - 2 ), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3685/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2013-14
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 32(1)

Maharashtra, Gujarat, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, NCR and Punjab,\  With the merger of Infiniti Wholesale Limited with the assessee, the assessee acquired intangible assets such as vendor contract, brand, supply chain resources etc of Infiniti Wholesale Limited. These underlying assets form part of the 'Goodwill  Goodwill is also approved ... block of assets means a group of assets falling within a class of assets comprising tangible assets, being buildings machinery, plant or furniture; intangible assets, being know-how, patents, copyrights, trade-marks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature; in respect of which the same

Janata Traders, Gadag vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

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

ITA 401/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Girija, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

taxmann.com 807 (SC). 7. The Tribunal has found that the Assessing Officer on meticulous appreciation of evidence on record has allowed depreciation on intangible assets and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) while passing the order under section 263 of the Act has held that the enquiry and verification made ... Assessing Officer is inadequate and the land cannot be treated as intangible asset. On the aforesaid basis, the powers under section 263 of the Act has been exercised and the order of the Assessing Officer has been set aside. The Tribunal has held that mere inadequacy of an enquiry

DCIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Inventurus Knowledge Soltions P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the learned Assessing

ITA 2403/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Inventurus Knowledge Income Tax Solutions Private Limited Central Circle 3(2)(1) 151, Nariman Bhavan, Room No. 357, 3 Rd Floor, Vinay Shah Marg, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aabci 5573 J Co No. 249/Mum/2019 (Arising In Ita No. 2403/Mum/2018 For A.Y. 2011–12) The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Inventurus Knowledge Income Tax Solutions Private Limited Central Circle 3(2)(1) 151, Nariman Bhavan, Room No. 357, 3 Rd Floor, Vinay Shah Marg, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee By : Shri Sc Tiwari/ Ms Umamagswari M, Ars Revenue By : Ms Samruddhi D Hande, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 25.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022

For Appellant: Shri SC Tiwari/For Respondent: Ms Samruddhi D Hande, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 92Section 92C

tested party' in, the party to the international transaction whose functions are simpler to evaluate, which does not own valuable non routine intangible assets and does not undertake substantial business risks.  Reliable information about the 'tested party' must be more easily and readily available and should be capable of being

M/.S Synamedia India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed in respect of the issues argued and considered hereinabove

ITA 2595/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2595/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Synamedia India Pvt. Ltd., Block 9A & 9B, The Deputy Pritech Park, Commissioner Of Survey No. 51-64/4, Income Tax, Sarjapur Outer Ring Circle – 6(1)(2), Road, Bengaluru. Vs. Bellandur Village, Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan: Aaccn1140K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ankur Pai, Advocate : Shri Praveen Karanth, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 28-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-10-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 29/10/2019 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai, Advocate
Section 143(2)

2595/Bang/2019 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 (in Rs.Millions) Acquired Software contractual Total rights Gross block (At cost ... Further, the capital expenditure towards R&D was only Rs.0.28 million, which clearly show that the R&D activities are routine. The value of intangible assets was only Rs.162.85 million constituting 1.31% of operating revenue. There is no reference to any intangible assets or patent owned or developed

Franklin Templeton Management (India) P.Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -Range-6(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2046/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Franklin Templeton Dy. Cit–Range 6(3)(1) Management (India) P. Ltd. Room No.506, 5 Th Floor, 12Th& 13Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, India Bulls Finance Center, Vs. Tower–2, Senapati Bapat M.K. Road, Marg, Elphinstone (W), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400013 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaact1609B Assessee By : Shri Farooq Irani, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vrinda U Matkari, Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.10.2022

For Appellant: Shri Farooq Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vrinda U Matkari, DR
Section 250Section 253Section 32(1)

Having regard to the facts and circumstance of the case, in view of the discussion in the preceding paragraphs, I find that no such intangible asset in the nature of Goodwill, for the purposes of Section 32 of the Act, could be said to have arisen as a result ... applicable in the present case." Franklin Templeton Management (India) pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 16–17 iv. "In the present case, I find that no such intangible asset in the nature of Goodwill, within the meaning of Section 32 of the Act, could be said to have arisen as aresult

Merck Specialities Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2056/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 4Section 5Section 92CSection 92C(1)

appellant even though various back up documents/emails evidencing the receipt of the technical consultancy services were submitted; 3. Depreciation of Rs. 5.19.87.305/- on intangible assets purchased from Merck Limited: In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP/ the Learned AO erred ... disallowing depreciation of Rs. 5,19,87,305/- in respect of intangible assets purchased by the appellant from Merck Limited for an aggregate value of Rs.65.50 Crores in the year ended 31 March, 2007, though the appellant contended that it is entitled to depreciation

ITO Corporate Ward 4(3), Chennai vs. Kaino Infra Development Private Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1491/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1491/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) The Income Tax Officer, Vs M/S. Kaino Infra Development Corporate Ward-4(3) Pvt Ltd., Chennai-34. 37, Ttk Road, Alwarpet, Chennai-600 018. Pan: Aadcr 5655E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit For Mr. V.Vikekananthan, Cit ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. G.Seetharaman, C.A. & Mr.S.Sundararaman, C.A सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Chennai Dated 31.01.2019 & Pertains To Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A) Is Contrary To Law & Facts Of The Case. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Allowing The Assessee'S Appeal By Stating That The Assessee Company Has Sufficiently & Reasonably Justified The Share Premium Received Of Rs.168.60 Crores For The Year.

For Appellant: Mr. AR V Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT for Mr. V.Vikekananthan, CITFor Respondent: Mr. G.Seetharaman, C.A. &
Section 56(2)(vii)

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 good will, knowhow etc. whichever is higher. Similarly, Rule 11UA prescribed method for valuation of shares of listed and non-listed companies

Trivitron Health Care Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 1340/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1340/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 V. M/S.Trivitron Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner- “Sapthagiri Bhavan”, Of Income Tax, New No.15, Old No.25, Corporate Circle-3(1), Trivitron Sapthagiri Bhawan, Chennai. 4Th Street, Abhiramapuram, Chennai. [Pan: Aaact 9378 H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Mr.M.Rajan, CIT
Section 119Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

furniture, being tangible assets' or know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licenses, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, being intangible assets allowable to the predecessor and the successor in the case of succession referred to in clause (xiii), clause (xiiib) and clause (xiv) of section ... proviso under section 32(1) clearly prescribes that in the case of an amalgamation, the aggregate deduction in respect of depreciation of tangible and intangible assets shall not exceed in any previous year, the deduction calculated at the prescribed rates, as if the amalgamation had not taken place. M/s.Trivitron Healthcare

ACIT, Cir- 14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Wns Global Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2474/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 14ASection 32(1)

justified in allowing the depreciation on the customer contract rights without appreciating the fact that the customer contract rights do not represent intangible assets as contemplated u/s 32(1) of the Act," 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case ... Coordinate Bench held as under: - 35. “The issue in ground no. 7 relates to disallowance of deprecation amounting to Rs 61,14,212/- on intangible assets acquired by the assessee on acquisition of customer contracts, which do not fall under the definition of intangible assets

ACIT, Circle 14 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. Wns Global Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2473/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 14ASection 32(1)

justified in allowing the depreciation on the customer contract rights without appreciating the fact that the customer contract rights do not represent intangible assets as contemplated u/s 32(1) of the Act," 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case ... Coordinate Bench held as under: - 35. “The issue in ground no. 7 relates to disallowance of deprecation amounting to Rs 61,14,212/- on intangible assets acquired by the assessee on acquisition of customer contracts, which do not fall under the definition of intangible assets

Ntt Data Fa Insurance Systems (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 261/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.261/Bang/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 92C

functionally different. Further, the segmental details for these diverse services are not available and therefore the company cannot be selected as a comparable. Significant intangible assets: 16.2 During the FYs 2013-14 to 2015-16, the company owned intangible assets representing around 7% of the total fixed assets held ... same, he requested that the company ought to be excluded. Presence of intangibles. 22.6 Ld. A.R. further submitted that the company owns significant intangible assets. The company is also developing further intangible assets. The total value of intangible assets as a percentage of fixed assets is 17.3%, which is significantly

Hewlett Packard (India) Software Operation Private Limited, 2016-17 vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 213/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.213/Bang/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 92C

rule (3) of Rule 10B. Hence, these pleas are rejected by Ld. DRP. 4.3 It was argued before Ld. DRP that this company owns intangible assets in the form of Intellectual property rights worth Rs.741.07 million, and which constitutes 21.85% unlike the assessee which does not own any intangibles ... hence this company has to be excluded. 4.4 Having examined the pleas, Ld. DRP noted that the details of intangible assets are given at page 96 of the annual report. As per that information, the company has reported intangible assets worth Rs.741.07 million as at 31-3-2016, which comprises

M/S. India Medtronics Pvt.Ltd., Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1(2), Baroda

In the result, similarly the Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 480/AHD/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Rajan R. Vora with Sh. Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamath/ Akhtar Hussain Ansari
Section 234BSection 271Section 274Section 92C

filed for the impugned assessment year, the assessee claimed depreciation @ 25% on the written down value (WDV) of goodwill by treating it as an intangible asset. However, both, the Assessing Officer as well as DRP disallowed assessee’s claim by holding that goodwill is not an intangible asset under section ... limited. 45. We have considered rival submissions and perused material on record. The issue relating to depreciation on goodwill by treating it as an intangible asset under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act is no more res integra in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

Hp Pps Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 278/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 278/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Hp Pps Services India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 24, Salarpuria Commissioner Of Arena, Income Tax, Hosur Main Road, Circle 3 (1)(1), Adugodi, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 030. Pan: Aadch5825N Appellant Respondent : Shri Padamchand Assessee By Khincha, Ca : Shri Binod Kumar Singh, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 22-08-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Assessment Order Dated 29/03/2021 Passed By National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi For A.Y. 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “The Appellant Submits That: I. Transfer Pricing The Grounds Mentioned Hereinafter Are Without Prejudice To One Another. 1. The Learned Assessing Officer ('Learned Ao'), Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ('Learned Tpo') & The Honourable Dispute Resolution Panel ('Hon'Ble Drp')

For Respondent: Shri Padamchand

Device Design Centre Pvt. Ltd. vs. JCIT (supra). We also note that this company is not a good comparable for following reasons: (i) Significant Intangible assets: During the FYs 2013-2015 to 2015-2016, the company owned intangible assets representing around 7% of the total fixed assets held