← 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

Dy CIT 6(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Chiripal Poly Films Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 7052/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr AdvFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Chaudhary, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 56Section 68

case and in law, the learned CIT - A order in deleting the addition made by assessing officer on account of depreciation claimed on intangible assets on the basis of decision made in assessment year 2012 - 13 subsequently, on 26/7/2021 the learned AO filed additional grounds as under ... learned assessing officer disallowed the depreciation of = 1,729,780/- on usage right considering same as_ building whereas assessee contended it to be an intangible assets entitled to depreciation @ 25 % , therefore on the same reasons, the learned AO found that the claim of the depreciation

M/S. Infineon Technologies India Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed partly

ITA 2870/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.2870/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Infineon Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner 9Th Floor Prestige Of Income-Tax Thirulakshmi Vs. Circle-3(1)(1) No.11 M.G. Road Bengaluru Bengaluru 560 001 Pan No : Aabcs6967N Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, A.R. Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Respondent By : D.R. Date Of Hearing : 13.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022 O R D E R Per Beena Pillai: Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 16/10/2017 Passed By The Ld.Dcit Under Section 143(3) R.W. Section 144C(13) For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Hereinafter Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, A.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 40Section 92C

Infotech Limited placed at paper book page No.277, which is absent in the case of present assessee. He also submitted that it has huge intangible assets and brand value in software at IT(TP)A No.2870/Bang/2017 Page 20 of 32 Rs.143,61,95,196 and it has intangible asset ... manufacturing (development). The company is developing applications engines, re-usable codes and libraries as a part of its R & D activities. Further, it has intangible assets as shown in the financial statement as on 31.03.2013 at Rs.3,03,83,536 and it is also engaged in outsource product development

M/S Tyco Fire & Security India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 3363/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 3363/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Tyco Fire & The Assistant Security India Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of D-601, Rmz Contennial, Income Tax, Kundalahalli Main Road, Circle – 7 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 048. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aabct0087C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 05-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 26.10.2018 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Tyco Fire & Security India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Appellant"), Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Appeal Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Learned Ao") Dated October 26, 2018 Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") Pursuant To The Directions Dated September 20, 2018 Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Drp") U/S 144C (5) Of The Act (`The Impugned Order') Inter-Alia On The Following Grounds: That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law:

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, CA
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C

accepted position that this company is a giant risk-taking company and is engaged in development and sale of software products and own intangible assets. Under such circumstances we deem it fit and proper to exclude this comparable from the finalist. Accordingly Ld. AO/TPO is directed to exclude this company

M/S Kemwell Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 657/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Harish V.S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh D, JCIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 2(11)Section 32Section 50

assets" means a group of assets falling within a class of assets comprising— (a) tangible assets, being buildings, machinery, plant or furniture; (b) intangible assets, being know-how, patents, copyrights, trade- marks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, 2[not being goodwill

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

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 129/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year :2014-15 M/S. Continental Automotive Vs. Dcit, Components India Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 2(1)(1), Plot No.53B, Bommasandra Industrial Bengaluru. Area, Hosur Road, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru–560 099. Pan : Aakcs 9578 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Senior Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92

Assessee is only a licensed manufacturer assuming normal risks and not engaged in R&D activities. The company is also in possession of intangible assets generated during the course of its operations. The proportion of raw materials consumed by the Assessee (76%) exceeds 1.5 times that of the comparable company

M/S Verifone India Technology Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 3089/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Verifone India Technology Pvt. Ltd., A 101, 1St Floor, Cyber The Income Tax Park, Plot No. 76, 77 & 78, Officer, Doddathogur Village, Ward – 7 (1) (3), Begur Hobli, Bangalore. Bangalore South Taluk, Vs. Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaccv1683K Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Verifone India Technology Pvt. Ltd., A 101, 1St Floor, Cyber The Deputy Park, Plot No. 76, 77 & 78, Commissioner Of Doddathogur Village, Income Tax, Begur Hobli, Circle – 7 (1)(2), Bangalore South Taluk, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaccv1683K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 22-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25-03-2022

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate
Section 92C

undertake the offshore software development work.  Assets Employed: Assets might be clearly recognizable i.e. tangible (Plant & Machinery, Equipment, Building, etc.) or they might be intangible assets (Intellectual Property, Brand Name, Trademarks, Technical Know, etc.). Verifone India employs routine tangible assets such as Plant & Machinery, Furniture & Fixtures, etc., for the purpose ... financial statement of Larsen & Toubro Infotech Limited which is absent in the case of present assessee. He also submitted that it has huge intangible assets and brand value in software at Rs.143,61,95,196 and it has intangible asset in the form of business rights to the tune

M/S Verifone India Technology Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-7(1)(3), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 3088/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Verifone India Technology Pvt. Ltd., A 101, 1St Floor, Cyber The Income Tax Park, Plot No. 76, 77 & 78, Officer, Doddathogur Village, Ward – 7 (1) (3), Begur Hobli, Bangalore. Bangalore South Taluk, Vs. Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaccv1683K Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Verifone India Technology Pvt. Ltd., A 101, 1St Floor, Cyber The Deputy Park, Plot No. 76, 77 & 78, Commissioner Of Doddathogur Village, Income Tax, Begur Hobli, Circle – 7 (1)(2), Bangalore South Taluk, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaccv1683K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 22-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25-03-2022

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate
Section 92C

undertake the offshore software development work.  Assets Employed: Assets might be clearly recognizable i.e. tangible (Plant & Machinery, Equipment, Building, etc.) or they might be intangible assets (Intellectual Property, Brand Name, Trademarks, Technical Know, etc.). Verifone India employs routine tangible assets such as Plant & Machinery, Furniture & Fixtures, etc., for the purpose ... financial statement of Larsen & Toubro Infotech Limited which is absent in the case of present assessee. He also submitted that it has huge intangible assets and brand value in software at Rs.143,61,95,196 and it has intangible asset in the form of business rights to the tune

DCIT 6 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Kilitch Healthcare India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross objection is held to be infructuous

ITA 7061/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viia)Section 56(2)(viib)

Assessing Officer, based on the value, on the date of issue of shares, of 11 M/s. Kilitch Healthcare India Ltd. 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; Following clauses ... assets, after amalgamation. A.O. held that the 18 M/s. Kilitch Healthcare India Ltd. assessee was not able to substantiate as to what exactly the intangible assets were received by it upon merger, which could be classified as goodwill. Therefore, the goodwill created in the books of the assessee company

Dhl Logistics P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 9(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7286/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledhl Logistics Pvt Ltd Vs. Acit – 9(3)(1) 201A, Silver Utopia, Room No. 215, Cardinal Gracias Road 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Chakala, Andheri (E) Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400099 Mumbai – 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm6824A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Madhur Agarwal.Ar Respondent By : Dr. Yogesh Kamat.Cit.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 15.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: Shri. Madhur Agarwal.ARFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat.CIT.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92D

Merger under Court Order] claimed @ 25% under applicable provisions of Section-32 of IT Act, under the Head Intangible Assets-Goodwill consisting of various Intangible Assets arising out of the acquisition of business unit of Lee & Muirhead Pvt. Ltd in the F.Y 2007-08 3.2. On the facts ... Court in case of Smifs Securities Ltd. (348 ITR 302) is not applicable in the present case and consequently erred in disallowing depreciation on intangible assets including goodwill. 3.3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the DRP erred in rejecting the valuation

Trent Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(3)(3), Mumbai

ITA 1500/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2008-09 Acit 2(3), M/S. Trent Ltd., Room No.552, Bombay House, 24, 5Th Floor, Vs. Homi Mody Street, Aayakar Bhavan, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 M.K. Marg, Pan: Aaacl 1838J Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Trent Ltd., Acit(Osd) 2(3) / Bombay House, Ito, Ward-2(3)(3), 2Nd Floor, 24, Room No.556, Vs. Homi Mody Street, Aayakar Bhavan, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 M.K. Road, Pan: Aaacl 1838J Churchgate, Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi, D.R
Section 35DSection 36

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] erred in confirming the disallowance made by Assessing Officer (AO) for depreciation claim of Rs.210,938/- on intangible assets -non-compete fees. 4 ITA No.2509/M/2012 & ors. M/s. Trent Ltd. 2) The CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.147,635/- (i.e. l/5th ... Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] erred in confirming the disallowance made by Assessing Officer (AO) for depreciation claim of Rs.66,742/- on intangible assets - non-compete fees. 2) The CIT(A) erred in applying Rule 8D (2)(iii) towards disallowance of administrative expenses

Trent Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT (OSD) 2(3), Mumbai

ITA 3423/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2008-09 Acit 2(3), M/S. Trent Ltd., Room No.552, Bombay House, 24, 5Th Floor, Vs. Homi Mody Street, Aayakar Bhavan, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 M.K. Marg, Pan: Aaacl 1838J Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Trent Ltd., Acit(Osd) 2(3) / Bombay House, Ito, Ward-2(3)(3), 2Nd Floor, 24, Room No.556, Vs. Homi Mody Street, Aayakar Bhavan, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 M.K. Road, Pan: Aaacl 1838J Churchgate, Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi, D.R
Section 35DSection 36

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] erred in confirming the disallowance made by Assessing Officer (AO) for depreciation claim of Rs.210,938/- on intangible assets -non-compete fees. 4 ITA No.2509/M/2012 & ors. M/s. Trent Ltd. 2) The CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.147,635/- (i.e. l/5th ... Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] erred in confirming the disallowance made by Assessing Officer (AO) for depreciation claim of Rs.66,742/- on intangible assets - non-compete fees. 2) The CIT(A) erred in applying Rule 8D (2)(iii) towards disallowance of administrative expenses

A.C.I.T. 2(3), Mumbai vs. Trent Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2509/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2008-09 Acit 2(3), M/S. Trent Ltd., Room No.552, Bombay House, 24, 5Th Floor, Vs. Homi Mody Street, Aayakar Bhavan, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 M.K. Marg, Pan: Aaacl 1838J Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Trent Ltd., Acit(Osd) 2(3) / Bombay House, Ito, Ward-2(3)(3), 2Nd Floor, 24, Room No.556, Vs. Homi Mody Street, Aayakar Bhavan, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 M.K. Road, Pan: Aaacl 1838J Churchgate, Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi, D.R
Section 35DSection 36

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] erred in confirming the disallowance made by Assessing Officer (AO) for depreciation claim of Rs.210,938/- on intangible assets -non-compete fees. 4 ITA No.2509/M/2012 & ors. M/s. Trent Ltd. 2) The CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.147,635/- (i.e. l/5th ... Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] erred in confirming the disallowance made by Assessing Officer (AO) for depreciation claim of Rs.66,742/- on intangible assets - non-compete fees. 2) The CIT(A) erred in applying Rule 8D (2)(iii) towards disallowance of administrative expenses

M/S Brady Company India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1)(4), Bangalore

In the result, ground 26 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 790/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.103/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 It(Tp)A No.790/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 M/S.Brady Company India Private The Income Tax Officer Limited, No.26, Survey No.41 Ward 1(1)(4) V. Bengaluru. Konappana Agrahara Village Begur, Hobli, Electronci City, Phase-Ii, Bengaluru – 560 100. Pan : Aaccb8163A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2022 Date Of Hearing : 07.03.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals Are At The Instance Of The Assessee. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2014-2015. 2. The Reason For Filing Two Appeals For Assessment Year 2014-2015 Is That Pursuant To The Dispute Resolution Panel’S (Drp) Directions (Directions Dated 28.09.2008), The A.O. Passed Final Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act Dated 15.11.2018. In The Said Assessment Order, The Aggregate Transfer Pricing Adjustment Was Determined At Rs.14,43,51,081. An Appeal Has Been Filed Before The Tribunal Against The Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act (Appeal No.It(Tp)A No.103/Bang/2019). Subsequently, On Application By The Assessee, The Drp Passed Rectification Order Dated

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 154

relation to compliance in Health, Safety and Environment. (b) Different business model – consultancy expenses in the nature of sub-contracting charges. (c) Presence of intangible assets and intellectual properties. (d) Significant brand value and performs brand building functions. (e) Higher scale of operations. 6.2.2 We have heard rival submissions ... process management services which are different from routine back office services. It is also seen that this company enjoys significant brand value and owns intangible assets which clearly establish that Infosys is different from the assessee in the case on hand. 7.4.2 We also further observe that this company, ‘Infosys

M/S Brady Company India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1)(4), Bangalore

In the result, ground 26 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 103/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.103/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 It(Tp)A No.790/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 M/S.Brady Company India Private The Income Tax Officer Limited, No.26, Survey No.41 Ward 1(1)(4) V. Bengaluru. Konappana Agrahara Village Begur, Hobli, Electronci City, Phase-Ii, Bengaluru – 560 100. Pan : Aaccb8163A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2022 Date Of Hearing : 07.03.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals Are At The Instance Of The Assessee. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2014-2015. 2. The Reason For Filing Two Appeals For Assessment Year 2014-2015 Is That Pursuant To The Dispute Resolution Panel’S (Drp) Directions (Directions Dated 28.09.2008), The A.O. Passed Final Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act Dated 15.11.2018. In The Said Assessment Order, The Aggregate Transfer Pricing Adjustment Was Determined At Rs.14,43,51,081. An Appeal Has Been Filed Before The Tribunal Against The Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act (Appeal No.It(Tp)A No.103/Bang/2019). Subsequently, On Application By The Assessee, The Drp Passed Rectification Order Dated

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 154

relation to compliance in Health, Safety and Environment. (b) Different business model – consultancy expenses in the nature of sub-contracting charges. (c) Presence of intangible assets and intellectual properties. (d) Significant brand value and performs brand building functions. (e) Higher scale of operations. 6.2.2 We have heard rival submissions ... process management services which are different from routine back office services. It is also seen that this company enjoys significant brand value and owns intangible assets which clearly establish that Infosys is different from the assessee in the case on hand. 7.4.2 We also further observe that this company, ‘Infosys

M/S. Opto Circuits (India) Ltd., Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 2323/BANG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.2323/Bang/2016 Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Shivaprasad Reddy &For Respondent: Shri Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

also confirmed the same. 4. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee has capitalized the payment of Rs.3,48,17,228/- as its intangible asset in the books of accounts. Accordingly, he submitted that the above said amount was not claimed as expenditure. Accordingly he submitted that the above said ... submitted that the TPO has determined the ALP of receipt of services as nil. Hence, even if the assessee has capitalized the payment as intangible asset, the depreciation claimed thereon is required to be disallowed. 6. The bench asked Ld. A.R. about the details of depreciation claimed by the assessee

Reliance Payment Solutions Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -8, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal is allowed

ITA 1010/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32

year ended 31 March 2015 (relevant to AY 2015-16) reveals that, the company was making expenditure under Capital Work in Progress and Intangible Asset under development, and had capitalized during the year software expenses of Rs.6.45 crore under the head Intangible Assets. Further under the Plant and Machinery head

Walvoil Fluid Power India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assesee is partly allowed

ITA 1901/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri R.E Balasubramanyam, C.AFor Respondent: Shri A Sreenivasa Rao, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

Marketing, Sales & Distribution, after sales services, Finance and administration. Assets Owned: The assessee uses the brand name Walvoil in its product which is an intangible asset belonging to the parent company. The fundamental design and R&D work is done at the parent company level though the assessee carries ... assessee uses tangible assets such Plant & Machiner, Electrical Installation, Tools & Equiments, office equipment and Furniture & Fixtures etc. The assessee does not own any intangible assets and no separate payments are made for using brand name. IT(TP)A No.1901/Bang/2017 Page 6 of 28 Risks assumed: The assessee bears the entire

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Subhash Kabini Power Corporation Limited, Bangalore

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

ITA 350/BANG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year :2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Subhash Kabini Power Corporation Ltd., Wing South Portion, Cristu Complex, 5Th Income Tax, Circle – 6(1)(2), Floor, No.41/7, Lavelle Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru–560 001. Pan : Aaccs 0881 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Ravi Tulsiyan, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 14.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : .03.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Ravi Tulsiyan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80

inventories of the generating entities as they are generated and held for the purpose of sale in ordinary course. Even though CERs are intangible assets those should he accounted as per AS-2 (Valuation of inventories) at a cost or market price, whichever is lower. Since CERs are recognized

M/S. Skf Technologies (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1773/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri K.R Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Narayana K.R, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

view that the above expenses have resulted in evolution of distinct technology, which could be registered as new patent or know how, i.e., an intangible asset. Hence the AO took these expenses as capital in nature and accordingly disallowed the claim. However, he allowed depreciation @ 25% and accordingly disallowed ... product development expensesare routine expenses incurred in the normal course of business to meet the requirements of customers and it did not create any intangible assets as presumed by the AO. The assessee has also not registered any patent or know how, as assumed by the AO. Further, the expenses

M/S. Vee Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-7, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Vee Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.71, Sona Towers, Millers Road, Bengaluru – 7, Bengaluru – 560 052. Bengaluru. Pan : Aabcv 0100 C Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.2042/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Vee Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, No.71, Sona Towers, Millers Road, Ward – 7[1][2], Bengaluru – 560 052. Bengaluru. Pan : Aabcv 0100 C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Suresh Muthukrishna, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 02.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.03.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

For Appellant: Shri. Suresh Muthukrishna, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 92C

back office services. It is also seen that this company enjoys significant brand value and owns IT(TP)A No.2042/Bang/2019 Page 9 of 19 intangible assets which clearly establish that lnfosys is different from the assessee in the. case on hand. 7.4.1 We also further observe that this company, 'Infosys