“intangible assets”

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

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

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

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

Jt. CIT (OSD) CC-7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Mumbai Nashik Expressway Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blejt.Cit(Osd)-Central Circle -7(2) V. M/S. Mumbai Nasik Expressway Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 655, Aayakar Bhavan Unit 803, 8Th Floor, A-Wing, One Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai -400051 Pan: Aaecm3349K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Kabra Department By : Shri Rajesh Damor

alia gave certain responsibilities, obligations and right to collect toll under Article III-Grant of Concession of Concession Agreement and has classified this as intangible assets thereby claimed depreciation at 25 percent of ₹.43,66,36, 283/- u/s 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Not convinced with the submission ... annuity from NHAI under the concession agreement. The assessee classified such cost incurred and right to receive annuity on the toll road as an intangible asset eligible for depreciation u/s.32(1)(ii) of the Act. This depreciation was denied by the ld. AO. The ld. AO held that assessee

Loreal India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/ACIT/ITO/NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2016-17 is treated as partly allowed

also acquired the business of Rahul Healthcare was acquired on a slump sale basis, which included not only tangible assets but also bundle of intangible assets collectively called goodwill. The assessee claimed that reference of intangible assets includes permits, employee, and contracts. The contention ... eligible for depreciation. The Hon’ble Court observed that Explanation 3 to section 32(1) states that the expression 'asset' shall mean an intangible asset, being know- how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature. A reading of the words 'any other

L' Oreal India P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. National E-Assessment Centre/ Dy CIT-Circle-7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2016-17 is treated as partly allowed

also acquired the business of Rahul Healthcare was acquired on a slump sale basis, which included not only tangible assets but also bundle of intangible assets collectively called goodwill. The assessee claimed that reference of intangible assets includes permits, employee, and contracts. The contention ... eligible for depreciation. The Hon’ble Court observed that Explanation 3 to section 32(1) states that the expression 'asset' shall mean an intangible asset, being know- how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature. A reading of the words 'any other

Dy CIT Circle- 12(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Archroma India Pvt Ltd., Thane

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – Circle – 12(1)(1) V. M/S. Archroma India Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 128C, 1St Floor 9Th Floor, D Building Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mbc Park, Ghodbunder Road Mumbai - 400020 Kasawadavali, Thane Mumbai - 400615 Pan: Aaaca8270F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agrawal Department By : Ms. Shailaja Rai

provisions of section 2(42)C and provisions of section 5OB. He further submitted that Customer Distribution Network (CDN) is an eligible intangible assets or the same can be recharacterised as goodwill for the purpose of applying tax depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) of the income ... furniture, being tangible assets or know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licences, 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

Dy CIT. Circle-1, Thane vs. M/S Travecom Global P. Ltd., Bhayander

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – Circle 1 V. M/S. Travecom Global Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 22, B-Wing B/607, Krishnakunj 6Th Floor, Ashar I.T. Park Salasar Brij Bhoomi Wagle Industrial Estate Bhayander (W)-401101 Thane (W)-400604 Pan: Aaect8729Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Aarti Vissanji Department By : Shri B.K. Bagchi

company to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer, based on the value, on the date of issue of shares, of its assets, including intangible assets being goodwill, know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, whichever is higher; (b) "venture capital

M/S. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT Cur 7(1)

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanpiramal Enterprises Ltd Vs. Acit, Circle – 7(1) (Formerly Known As Aayakar Bhavan Piramal Healthcare Ltd) Mumbai – 400020. (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal Ind) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400013. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn4538P Appellant .. Respondent Dcit, Circle – 7(1) Vs. Piramal Enterprises Ltd Aayakar Bhyavan (Formerly Known As Mumbai – 400 020. Piramal Healthcare Ltd) (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal Ind) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn4538P Assessee By : Mr.Ronak Doshi & Ms.Manshi Padhiyar.Ar Revenue By : Mr.S.N.Kabra.Dr

allowing depreciation © 60% on the software purchased by the assessee clubbing the same with the computer hardware ignoring the fact that software as an intangible asset was entitled for depreciation only © 25% u/s.32( l)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 196 1 since software purchased is not a product ... when the computers were purchased along with software. In case, the software is purchased separately, then the same would be an acquisition of intangible assets as envisaged in part- B of depreciation schedule and such intangible asset is entitled for depreciation @ 25%. Accordingly, disallowed excess depreciation claimed by the assessee

Jt. CIT (OSD), CC-7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Andhra Expressway Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1588/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1589/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Jcit (Osd), Cc-7(2), M/S Andhra Expressway Ltd. R. No. 655, Aayakar बनाम/ Ground Floor, Gammon Bhavan, M. K. Road, House, Veer Savarkar Vs. Mumbai-400020 Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400 025 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aadca3577E (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Smt. Shailja Rai, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By Shri Rakesh Joshi, Ld. Ar : सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 01.06.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 24.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 29.06.2021, Passed By 2

gave certain responsibilities, obligations and right to collect toll under Article III-Grant of Concession of Concession Agreement and assessee has classified this as intangible assets thereby claimed 10 I.T.A. No. 1588 & 1589/Mum/2021 M/s Andhra Expressway Ltd. depreciation ... owner" of the road and cannot claim depreciation on it. However, the fact that the asset could be considered as an intangible asset and hence, allowable for depreciation, was not there for consideration before the Hon'ble High Court and the same remained open even after this decision

ITO 6(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Indo Energy International Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5805/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Indo Energy Ito – 6(3)(1), International Pvt. R. No. 506, 5Th Floor, Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. बिधम/ 1St Floor, J. V. House, Road, Mumbai-400051 Vs. 2Nd Floor, Dr. D. S. Babrekar Marg, Mumbai-400 028 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aabci1739A (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. P. Rastogi, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Jitendra Jain, Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 14.06.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 24.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Impugned Order Dated 05.07.2018, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-12

27/03/2017 restricting the depreciation on the cost of the jetty to 15% treating it as plant & machinery instead of intangible asset, is not in accordance with the provisions of section 154 of Act and therefore, the same is not legally sustainable." 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances ... account and the Jetty was put to use during the AY 2010-11. The assessee had capitalized the cost for Jetty under the block, ‘Intangible Assets’ and claimed depreciation @ 25% which was accepted and allowed by the AO in the earlier, i.e., AY 2010-11. 3. The assessee had filed

ACIT Circle-3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Chemicon Engineering Consultant Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7907/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) Chemicon Engineering बिधम/ Acit, Circle 3(1)(2) Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Room No.607, Aayakar Vs. 21 & 22, 2Nd Floor, 230, Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Sakhar Bhawan, Nariman Road, Mumbai-400020. Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 833/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) Acit, Circle 3(1)(2) बिधम/ Chemicon Engineering Room No.607, Aayakar Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 21 & 22, 2Nd Floor, 230, Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. Sakhar Bhawan, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc2686H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Revenue By: Shri H. N. Singh (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee & Revenue Respectively Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-08, Mumbai Dated 29.11.2019 For The A.Y.2013-14. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Both The Parties Are As Follows: Assessee Grounds: - 1. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Act, 1961 (The “Act”) & A.Ys.2013-14 Chemicon Engineering That By The Cit(A) U/S 250 Of The Act So Far It Relates To In Confirming Of The Additions To The Extent Of A) Rs. 6,22,05,000/- Received From Certain Companies Out Of Total Rs. 13,13,50,000/- In Respect Of Shares Allotted Against Share Application Money;

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM

Chemicon Engineering Consultant Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Circle- 3 (1)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7907/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) Chemicon Engineering बिधम/ Acit, Circle 3(1)(2) Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Room No.607, Aayakar Vs. 21 & 22, 2Nd Floor, 230, Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Sakhar Bhawan, Nariman Road, Mumbai-400020. Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 833/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) Acit, Circle 3(1)(2) बिधम/ Chemicon Engineering Room No.607, Aayakar Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 21 & 22, 2Nd Floor, 230, Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. Sakhar Bhawan, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc2686H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Revenue By: Shri H. N. Singh (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee & Revenue Respectively Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-08, Mumbai Dated 29.11.2019 For The A.Y.2013-14. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Both The Parties Are As Follows: Assessee Grounds: - 1. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Act, 1961 (The “Act”) & A.Ys.2013-14 Chemicon Engineering That By The Cit(A) U/S 250 Of The Act So Far It Relates To In Confirming Of The Additions To The Extent Of A) Rs. 6,22,05,000/- Received From Certain Companies Out Of Total Rs. 13,13,50,000/- In Respect Of Shares Allotted Against Share Application Money;

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM

Gea Process Engineering (India) P.Ltd, Gujrat vs. ITO, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09 Dcit, M/S. Gea Process Circle- 2(2)(1), Engineering (India) Pvt. Room No.545, Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Savli Road, M.K. Road, P.O. Dumad, Mumbai - 400020 Baroda, Gujarat- 391740 Pan: Aaacl0566H (Appellant) (Respondent)

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets (other than Goodwill) amounting to Rs. 5,19,11,719/- claimed by the Appellant. 4. Without prejudice to above grounds, on the facts and circumstances ... also disallowed the claim of depreciation of the assessee company to the tune of Rs.5,19,11,719/- on opening WDV of intangible assets of Rs.20,76,46,875/- by following A.Y. 2006- 07. The AO also disallowed an amount of Rs.1,13,20,000/- debited by the assessee

DCIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Gea Process Engineering ()I) P.Ltd, Gujrat

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09 Dcit, M/S. Gea Process Circle- 2(2)(1), Engineering (India) Pvt. Room No.545, Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Savli Road, M.K. Road, P.O. Dumad, Mumbai - 400020 Baroda, Gujarat- 391740 Pan: Aaacl0566H (Appellant) (Respondent)

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets (other than Goodwill) amounting to Rs. 5,19,11,719/- claimed by the Appellant. 4. Without prejudice to above grounds, on the facts and circumstances ... also disallowed the claim of depreciation of the assessee company to the tune of Rs.5,19,11,719/- on opening WDV of intangible assets of Rs.20,76,46,875/- by following A.Y. 2006- 07. The AO also disallowed an amount of Rs.1,13,20,000/- debited by the assessee