“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

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

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

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

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

Nepal Singh Rathod (HUF), Hubli vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

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

ITA 400/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep &For Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

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

West Gujarat Exdpress Way Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -14(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 483/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Niranjan Govindekar a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Kardam

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(3)

No.2496/Mum./2021 and ITA no.483/Mum./2021 depreciation on roads treating the assessee as owner of the ‘right to collect toll’, which is an ‘intangible asset’ on which depreciation is allowable under section 32 of the Act, by following the decision of coordinate bench of Tribunal in assessee’s own case ... depreciation, the learned CIT(A) denied the claim of the assessee of allowing depreciation at the rate of 25% applicable in case of intangible assets and restricted the same to 15% as claimed by the assessee in its return of income, by observing as under: “4.34 As regards the quantum

ACIT, Circle-14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. West Gujarat Express Way Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2496/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Niranjan Govindekar a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Kardam

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(3)

M/S. Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2, Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, all these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2593/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri.Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 2593/Bang/2019 M/S. Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Acit, 2015-16 Te Park, 22B, Doddenakundi Corporation, Circle – 2, 2Nd Phase, Industrial Area, Large Taxpayer Unit, Whitefield Road, Bengaluru Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan: Aabct 7374 C 372/Bang/2021 -Do- -Do- 2016-17 200/Bang/2022 -Do- Dcit, Ltu, 2017-18 Circle – 2, Bengaluru. 716/Bang/2022 -Do- Acit, 2018-19 Circle – 7(1)(1), Bengaluru. Assessee By : Shri Sriram Seshadri, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 92Section 92ASection 92F

excess consideration paid amounting to INR 28,87,75,784/- over and above the networth of the company so acquired was claimed as intangible assets and in AY 2014-15 depreciation amounting to INR 4,06,09,095/- was claimed on such goodwill, which was IT(TP)A Nos.2593/Bang/2019, 372/Bang/2021 ... over an addition sum of Rs.28,87,75,784/- was paid. The said additional consideration was nothing but value of goodwill which was an intangible asset, on which the Assessee claimed depreciation in Assessment Year 2014-15 amounting to Rs.4,06,09,095/- on such goodwill. The said Goodwill amounting

M/S. Hewlett-Packard (India) Software Operation Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range- 3, Bangalore

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2575/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 2575/Bang/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Biju M.K. , CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 28

Asstt.CIT [2016] 67 taxmann.com 155, wherein the Tribunal took note of the fact that this company was also trading in software and owned insignificant intangible assets. The company was excluded from the list of comparable companies with reference to SWD services provider such as the assessee. The ld. Counsel pointed

DCIT Cir 6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Money Mart Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes and Cross Objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4256/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Section 143(3)

Revenue appeal first. 2. The first issue raised by the Revenue is challenging the action of the ld. CIT(A) in allowing depreciation on intangible assets. 2.1. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee is engaged in the business of marketing and distribution ... Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Smifs Securities Ltd., reported in 348 ITR 320, this Tribunal had already granted depreciation on the intangible assets to the assessee. Similar depreciation was allowed to the assessee upto A.Y.2010-11. We find that the ld. CIT(A) after narrating the entire facts

M/S. Waterline Hotels Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 388/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14 Waterline Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner 10Th Floor, Gamma Block, Of Income Tax, Sigma Soft Tech Park No.07, Circle 7(1)(2), Airport Varthur Road, Bangalore. Whitefield, Bangalore – 560 066. Pan: Aaacw 8059N Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Pranav Krishna, Advocate Respondent By : Shri V S Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S.This Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Cit(Appeals)-7, Bengaluru Dated 27.3.2019 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised 18 Grounds Pertaining To The Following Issues:- Page 2 Of 20

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 271Section 40Section 56(2)(viib)

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; Page

M/S Bosch Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu Circle-1, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1629/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14 Bosch Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Hosur Road, Adugodi, Of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore – 560 030. Circle 1, Pan: Aaacm 9840P Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Advocate Respondent By : Shri V S Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S.2. This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Cit(Appeals), Bangalore-9, Bangalore Dated 31.3.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013- 14. 3. The Assessee Raised Grounds Pertaining To The Following Issues:- Deduction U/S. 35(2Ab) Computed On Net Expenditure As Opposed To Gross Expenditure Disallowance Of Provision For Bad & Doubtful Debts I) Disallowance Of Provision For Long Term Service Award Disallowance Of Expenditure U/S. 14A Of The Act Ii) Page 2 Of 67

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 14ASection 35Section 37Section 43BSection 80J

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT

DCIT Circle- 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Reliance Corporate It Park Ltd., Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid findings

ITA 1195/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora a/wFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, Sr. AR

Section 250

benchmarking the transaction pertaining to „provision of business support services‟ and not „provision of ITeS services‟. Further, we find that this company owned intangible assets even in preceding assessment year, in which it was considered to be comparable to the assessee by the TPO. Thus, in view of the above

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 10(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Lyka Labs Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2934/MUM/2019[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit – 10(2)(1) Vs. M/S. Lyka Labs Ltd., 5Th Floor, Room No. Ground Floor, Spencer 509, Aayakar Bhavan, Bldg, 30, Forjett Street. Churchgate, Grant Road(West), Mumbai -400036. Mumbai -400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacl0820G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt.Shailja Rai. Cit Dr Respondent By : Shri .Jayesh Dadia. Ar Date Of Hearing 28.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -17, Mumbai Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Smt.Shailja Rai. CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri .Jayesh Dadia. AR

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 55(2)

partial relief vide order dated 05.11.2004. Further,the assessee has filed explanations in respect of the transactions and the nature of the knowhow and intangible assets. But the Lyka Labs Ltd., Mumbai. A.O was not satisfied with the explanations and observed that the asseessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income

DCIT 1(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Goldstar Metal Solution P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 297/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Section 143(3)

assessee claimed depreciation @ 25%, amounting to Rs. 47,40,000 / -. 4.5 The assessée asked to submit the details and justify the depreciation on intangible assets, vide questionnaire dated 05.01.2015. The assessee replied vide letter dated 13.01.2015. The same has been placed on records, after perusal. But the arguments ... itself since it is not clear, how much benefit has accrued to the assessee. 4.7 Irrespective of above, the claim of having any intangible assets itself is incorrect and with it, claim of any depreciation claimed against the profit of the period. Explanation of assessee, give vide letter dated

Atos It Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 226/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, CAFor Respondent: Shri Bijoy Kumar Panda, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92B(2)Section 92C

goodwill under section 32(1) of the Act.” IT(TP)A No.226/Bang/2021 Page 20 of 25 27. The assessee has made an addition of intangible assets for Rs.93,51,41,592 and claimed depreciation on goodwill of Rs.23,37,85,398. The assessee submitted before the AO that goodwill ... under:- “4.28: Conclusion: We have clearly demonstrated that the issue before Hon'ble SC in Smif Securities was only that whether goodwill is an intangible asset and hence eligible for depreciation under section 32(1) of the Act. We accept that SC has correctly laid down the law that goodwill

M/S Infineon Technologies India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 3355/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 3355/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Infineon Technologies India Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of 9Th Floor, Prestige Income Tax, Thirulakshmi, Circle – 3(1)(1), No. 11, Mg Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcs6967N Appellant Respondent : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Assessment Order Dated 26/10/2018 By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “A. 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') Grossly Erred In Adjusting The Transfer Price By Inr 9,56,93,721/- With Respect To The International

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Vasudevan

Section 92C

Assets owned (Both segments) For the purpose of providing software development service & MSS to its AEs, ITIPL uses the following tangible assets and intangible assets for its business operations. Employees The personnel who provide services to AEs are on ITIPL’s payroll. The AEs personnel also provide support and guide ... employees of ITIPL. Tangible Assets  Leasehold improvement;  Computer systems; and  Office equipment Intangible Assets ITIPL does not own any non-routine intangibles; it does not own trade secrets or undertake research and development activities that would lead to the development of non-routine intangibles. Whereas, the AEs being the entrepreneurial

Oocl Logistics (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 7(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2001/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Siddhesh ChauguleFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 244A

Previous Year 5,493.95 48.34 10,954.59 472.40 378.53 38.22 814.71 10,139.88 5,506.98 SCHEDULE–6 INTANGIBLE ASSETS Computer 18.04 - – 29.01 12.97 9.67 – 22.64 6.37 29.01 Software 16.04 – – 29.01 12.97 9.57 – 22.64 6.37 29.01 Previous Year 7.00 – 29.01 3.93 9.04 – 12.97 18.04 22.01 Also, a perusal of the 'annual

Wns Global; Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle- 14 (3)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 295/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Cross Objection No. 52/Mum/2020 (Arising In Ita No. 2383/Mum/2019 For A.Y. 10-11)

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Tejandra Pal Singh, DR

deleting the depreciation of Rs.81,52,282/- 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. 12. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... according to the provision of Sections 10A(9) of the Act, the claim of the assessee was denied. ii. assessee has claimed deduction on intangible assets in the rate of 25% of `81,52,282/–. The claim of the depreciation because of the reason that assessee acquired the business

DCIT-14(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Wns Global Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2383/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Cross Objection No. 52/Mum/2020 (Arising In Ita No. 2383/Mum/2019 For A.Y. 10-11)

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Tejandra Pal Singh, DR

Oocl Logistics (India ). P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7024/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 234DSection 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C(2)Section 92C(3)Section 92D

Year 5,493.95 48.34 10,954.59 472.40 378.53 38.22 814.71 10,139.88 5,506.98 OOCL Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.7024/Mum./2012 SCHEDULE–6 INTANGIBLE ASSETS Computer 18.04 - – 29.01 12.97 9.67 – 22.64 6.37 29.01 Software 16.04 – – 29.01 12.97 9.57 – 22.64 6.37 29.01 Previous Year

Eit Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 210/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 92D

order dated 5.2.2016, wherein the Tribunal took note of the fact that this company was also trading in software and owned insignificant intangible assets. The company was excluded from the list of comparable companies with reference to SWD services provider such as the assessee. The ld. Counsel pointed out that

Capita India Pvt Limited (Capita India), Mumbai vs. Nafc Delhi, Delhi

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

ITA 732/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 14A

premium price and the customers would be willing to pay any price for the services offered by such companies. Further, this company possesses significant intangible assets in the form of goodwill. It has also incurred huge selling and marketing expenses to the tune of Rs.156 crores, where as the assessee

Hp India Sales Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bangalore

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

ITA 524/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.524/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Hp India Sales Private The Joint Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known As Income-Tax, Ltu V. Bangalore. Hewlett-Packard India Sales Private Limited), 24 Salarpuria Area, Hosur Main Road, Adugodi Bangalore – 560 030. Pan : Aaacc9862F. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Ajay Vohra, Senior Counsel / Sri. Neeraj Jain, Sri.Lalit Attal & Sri.Karon Dhanuka, Advoicates Respondent By : Sri.Harishchandra Naik, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2022 Date Of Hearing : 27.07.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 03.01.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2012-2013. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In Import Of Computer Peripherals From Its Associated Enterprises (Aes) For Sale In India & Also Rendered Certain Support Services. The Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2012-2013 Was Filed On 29.02.2012, Admitting Total Income Of Rs.544,61,99,276. The Return Was Revised On 25.03.2014

For Appellant: Sri.Ajay Vohra, Senior Counsel / Sri. Neeraj JainFor Respondent: Sri.Harishchandra Naik, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92BSection 92C

Honorable DRP and the learned AO have erred in law and on facts in disallowing the depreciation claim of Rs.2,873,837 on intangible assets claimed by the Appellant. 3.2 The Honorable DRP and the learned AO have further, erred in law and on facts in not following the jurisdictional