← 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

M/S Wavell Investments Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT Circle-2(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1644/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am M/S Wavell Investment Pvt. Ltd. Jt. Cit (Osd) 15, Mohindra House, 2(3)(1) Room No. 552, 5 Th Floor, J N Heredia Marg, Vs. Ballard Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 038 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaacw0598C M/S Wavell Investment Pvt. Ltd. Jt. Cit (Osd) 15, Mohindra House, 2(3)(1) Room No. 552, 5 Th Floor, J N Heredia Marg, Vs. Ballard Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 038 (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee By : Ms Ritika Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.08.2022

For Appellant: Ms Ritika Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(i)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 56(2)Section 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 any intangible assets. The higher of option at (1) or (2) shall be considered as the fair market value of the shares. Rule 11UA of the income

Jt. CIT(OSD)-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Wavell Investment Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1288/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am M/S Wavell Investment Pvt. Ltd. Jt. Cit (Osd) 15, Mohindra House, 2(3)(1) Room No. 552, 5 Th Floor, J N Heredia Marg, Vs. Ballard Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 038 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaacw0598C M/S Wavell Investment Pvt. Ltd. Jt. Cit (Osd) 15, Mohindra House, 2(3)(1) Room No. 552, 5 Th Floor, J N Heredia Marg, Vs. Ballard Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 038 (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee By : Ms Ritika Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.08.2022

For Appellant: Ms Ritika Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(i)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 56(2)Section 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 any intangible assets. The higher of option at (1) or (2) shall be considered as the fair market value of the shares. Rule 11UA of the income

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

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

ITA 2385/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sumeet Khurana, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92D

carried in the normal course of business. Besides, as per the information in the Asset Schedule (at page 11 of Annual report), the intangible assets comprised of Intellectual Property and computer software. The value of Intellectual Property as on 31.03.2013 was Rs.67 million, as on 31.03.2014 Rs.15 million ... order dated 5-2-2010, 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 Id. Counsel pointed

Dy CIT CC 7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Mumbai Nasik Expressway Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeal by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 851/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.849/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2013-14) आअसं.850/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2014-15) आअसं.851/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2015-16) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc-7(2),Mumbai, Room No.655, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Mumbai Nasik Expressway Ltd. 803, 8Th Floor, A-Wing, One Bkc, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051. Aaecm-3349-K . ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Achal Sharma ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Rakesh Joshi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 04/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Achal SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Joshi
Section 32(1)(i)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 37(1)

facts and circumstances of the case and in, the law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets u/s 32(1)(ii) of the Act without considering the fact that CBDT Circular No.9 of 2014 was issued by the Board precisely to remove ... ambiguity as to how the instant issue needs to dealt with by the AOs and the claim of depreciation on intangible assets is not allowable to the assessee. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in the law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting

Dy CIT CC 7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Mumbai Nasik Expressway Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeal by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 850/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.849/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2013-14) आअसं.850/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2014-15) आअसं.851/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2015-16) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc-7(2),Mumbai, Room No.655, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Mumbai Nasik Expressway Ltd. 803, 8Th Floor, A-Wing, One Bkc, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051. Aaecm-3349-K . ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Achal Sharma ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Rakesh Joshi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 04/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Achal SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Joshi
Section 32(1)(i)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 37(1)

facts and circumstances of the case and in, the law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets u/s 32(1)(ii) of the Act without considering the fact that CBDT Circular No.9 of 2014 was issued by the Board precisely to remove ... ambiguity as to how the instant issue needs to dealt with by the AOs and the claim of depreciation on intangible assets is not allowable to the assessee. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in the law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting

Dy CIT CC 7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Mumbai Nasik Expressway Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeal by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 849/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.849/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2013-14) आअसं.850/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2014-15) आअसं.851/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2015-16) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc-7(2),Mumbai, Room No.655, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Mumbai Nasik Expressway Ltd. 803, 8Th Floor, A-Wing, One Bkc, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051. Aaecm-3349-K . ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Achal Sharma ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Rakesh Joshi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 04/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Achal SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Joshi
Section 32(1)(i)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 37(1)

facts and circumstances of the case and in, the law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets u/s 32(1)(ii) of the Act without considering the fact that CBDT Circular No.9 of 2014 was issued by the Board precisely to remove ... ambiguity as to how the instant issue needs to dealt with by the AOs and the claim of depreciation on intangible assets is not allowable to the assessee. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in the law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting

Abbott Healthcare P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 570/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.570/मुं/2018 ("न.व. 2011-12) Abbott Healthcare Private Limited., 4, Corporate Park, Sion -Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai 400 071. Pan: Aaack-3935-D ..... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : S/Shri Raghavendra Singh/ Lokesh Shah/Kiran Belkar ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Smt. Monica Khare सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 04/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: S/Shri Raghavendra Singh/For Respondent: Smt. Monica Khare
Section 254(2)Section 32Section 32(1)

have allowed the said claim of depreciation on the right acquired by payment of non-compete fees, by holding that such right was an intangible asset as per clause {b) of Explanation 3 to Section 32(1) of the Act; c) On the facts and in the circumstances ... paid Non-compete Fee to the tune of Rs.513,54,60,000/-. The assessee claimed depreciation u/s. 32 on Non- compete Fee being an intangible asset. The Assessing Officer disallowed assessee’s claim. The assessee carried the issue in appeal before the First Appellate Authority. Before

Lg Soft India Private 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

ITA 266/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Rashmi R., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R
Section 143(3)

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 ... 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 (in Rs.Millions) Acquired Software contractual Total rights Gross block (At cost

Airlinq Technology Private Limited (Formerly Known As Globetouch Technologies Private Limited), Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 231/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.231/Bang/2021 : Asst.Year 2016-2017 M/S.Airlinq Technology Pvt. Ltd. The Deputy Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Globe Touch Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(1) V. Bangalore. Technologies Private Limited) 306, 100 Feet Road, Binna Mangala Stage – 1, Indiranagar Bangalore – 560 038. Pan : Aafcg7626L. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : S/Sri.Ajit Kumar Jain & Siddesh Chaugule, Cas Respondent By : Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 28.07.2022 Date Of Hearing : 21.07.2022 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 29.03.2021 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2016-2017. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Was Incorporated On 15.10.2014 As A Wholly Owned Subsidiary Of Globetouch Inc, Usa. The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Rendering Software Development Services (Swd) To Globetouch Inc. For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, The Return Of Income Was Filed Declaring An Income Of Rs.4,23,01,510 Under The Normal Provisions Of The Income-Tax Act. The Assessment Was Selected

For Appellant: S/Sri.Ajit Kumar Jain & Siddesh Chaugule, CAsFor Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92D

company cannot be selected as a comparable. The other reason for not considering Infobean Technologies Limited as comparable are as under:- (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 by the company

ACIT 13 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Zelle Biotechnology Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7675/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleacit-13(3)(2) V. M/S. Zelle Biotechnology Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 229/219, 2Nd Floor 110, Udyog Bhavan Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Sonawala Road, Goregaon (E) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400063 Pan: Aaacz2106R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Meet Shah Department By : Shri Hoshang B. Irani

For Appellant: Shri Meet ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)

have taken a consistent stand of allowing depreciation on Goodwill being excess of consideration paid over and above net asset value. Goodwill is an intangible asset providing a competitive advantage to an entity. This includes a strong brand, reputation, a cohesive human resource, dealer network, customer base etc. The expression ... when a person acquires a business of another as a going concern. From an accounting perspective, it is well established that 'goodwill' is an intangible asset, which is required to be accounted for when a purchaser acquires a business as a going concern by paying more than the fair market

Om Sai Co-Operative Credit Souharda Sahakari Niyamit, Gadag vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 454/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George CIT(OSD)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P

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

;Marie Gold Realtors P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-CC-8(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 825/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth KotariFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Kabra
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

observed that assessee has claimed total depreciation of ₹.11,62,82,222/- (including depreciation of tenancy rights of ₹.8,47,48,773/- claimed as intangible assets) under the head depreciation allowable as per I.T. Act. Assessing Officer observed that during the year under consideration assessee has made an addition ... erred in confirming the AO’s action of not treating the tenancy rights as a licence, an intangible asset on which depreciation is allowable.” The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend and /or delete all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal. The appellant prays this

Marie Gold Realtors P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-CC-8(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 824/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth KotariFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Kabra
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

observed that assessee has claimed total depreciation of ₹.11,62,82,222/- (including depreciation of tenancy rights of ₹.8,47,48,773/- claimed as intangible assets) under the head depreciation allowable as per I.T. Act. Assessing Officer observed that during the year under consideration assessee has made an addition ... erred in confirming the AO’s action of not treating the tenancy rights as a licence, an intangible asset on which depreciation is allowable.” The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend and /or delete all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal. The appellant prays this

Privilege Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 14, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 3317/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax– M/S Privilege Industries Ltd. 14 3Rd Floor, Dheeraj Arma, Anant Room No. 415, Vs. Kanekar Marg, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecs6532N

For Appellant: Mr. Nimesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Sanjay V. Deshmukh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 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; 017. However

Plus Bksp Toll Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT 15 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7341/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Kavitha Rajagopal () - A.Y. 2012-13 - A.Y. 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32(1)(ii)

Rs.44,96,15,895/- charged @25% on ‘Concession Assets’ with WDV of Rs.161,25,02,030/- after treating such assets under the head ‘INTANGIBLE ASSETS’ and therefore, the Ld.PCIT set aside the order dated 25/03/2015 passed under section 143(3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer, in compliance ... pages 2 to 5 of the assessment order. The depreciation charged at 25% on “concession assets” after treating such assets under the head ‘Intangible assets’ was denied on the ground that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs West Gujarat Expressway Ltd 73 taxmann.com

Plus Bksp Toll Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT 15 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7340/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Kavitha Rajagopal () - A.Y. 2012-13 - A.Y. 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32(1)(ii)

Rs.44,96,15,895/- charged @25% on ‘Concession Assets’ with WDV of Rs.161,25,02,030/- after treating such assets under the head ‘INTANGIBLE ASSETS’ and therefore, the Ld.PCIT set aside the order dated 25/03/2015 passed under section 143(3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer, in compliance ... pages 2 to 5 of the assessment order. The depreciation charged at 25% on “concession assets” after treating such assets under the head ‘Intangible assets’ was denied on the ground that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs West Gujarat Expressway Ltd 73 taxmann.com

Dy. CIT, Circle 7(1) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Novartis Healthcare Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 453/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Brijesh ParmarFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)

accept the same and according to him the purchase of software provides enduring benefits and so is capital expenses; and resultantly is an intangible assets and allowed depreciation @ 25% of the expenses claimed. And thus the AO did 2 A.Y. 2016-17 Novartis Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. not accept the assessee

M/S. Sap Labs India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-6, Bangalore

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

ITA 606/BANG/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., No. 138, Export It(Tp)A No. Promotion Industrial 2008-09 606/Bang/2021 Park, Whitefield, Bangalore – 560 066. Pan: Aafcs3649P The Joint M/S. Sap Labs India Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, (Successor To M/S. Special Range – 6, Success Factors Bangalore. Business Solutions It(Tp)A No. India Pvt. Ltd.), 2015-16 2510/Bang/2019 No. 138, Export Promotion Industrial Park, Whitefield, Bangalore – 560 066. Pan: Aafcs3649P

For Appellant: Shri Aliasger Rampurwala, CA
Section 3(1)(b)

company has significant intangibles. However, on perusal of the information at page 86 of the annual report, Ld. DRP noted that the value of intangible assets as on 31.03.2015 was Nil and as on 31.0.2014 was Rs.13 crore, which is insignificant considering its turnover of Rs.47,300 crore and Asset

M/S. Success Factors Business Solutions India Private Limited (Now Merged With Sap Labs India Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range - 6, Bangalore

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

ITA 2510/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., No. 138, Export It(Tp)A No. Promotion Industrial 2008-09 606/Bang/2021 Park, Whitefield, Bangalore – 560 066. Pan: Aafcs3649P The Joint M/S. Sap Labs India Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, (Successor To M/S. Special Range – 6, Success Factors Bangalore. Business Solutions It(Tp)A No. India Pvt. Ltd.), 2015-16 2510/Bang/2019 No. 138, Export Promotion Industrial Park, Whitefield, Bangalore – 560 066. Pan: Aafcs3649P

For Appellant: Shri Aliasger Rampurwala, CA
Section 3(1)(b)

company has significant intangibles. However, on perusal of the information at page 86 of the annual report, Ld. DRP noted that the value of intangible assets as on 31.03.2015 was Nil and as on 31.0.2014 was Rs.13 crore, which is insignificant considering its turnover of Rs.47,300 crore and Asset

DCIT - 3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. V. Hotels Ltd.(Formerly Known As Tulip Hospitality Services Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5664/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2022AY 2013-14
Section 32(1)(ii)

merits in the contention of the assessee that the additional FSI is a business or commercial rights falling within the realm and scope of ‘intangible asset’ within the scope of section 32(1)(ii). The FSI only relates to giving of the right to construct additional floor to the assessee ... five years under consideration. 8. Next common issue contested by the revenue in all the five years relates to disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets. The assessee had claimed depreciation on intangible assets, which were in the nature of licenses, franchises and other business and commercial rights. The Assessing Officer