“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

M/S. Vee Technologies Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 7(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2042/BANG/2019[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

DCIT 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Diesel Fashion India Reliance Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

Accordingly it is to be dismissed as such

ITA 2931/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Section 143(3)

reseller purchases tangible property or obtain services from an A.E. and reseller does not physically alter the tangible goods and services or use any intangible assets to add substantial value to the property or services i.e., resale is made without any value addition having been made." 11. This view

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 3133/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 3133/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Cypress Semiconductor Technology India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 65/2, Bagmane Laurel, Commissioner Of Block C, Bagmane Tech Park, Income Tax, C.V Raman Nagar, Circle – 2 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 093. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aabcc2470Q Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar

Section 133(6)Section 92CSection 92D

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

American Power Conversion (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Addl.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated herein above

ITA 1111/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 1111/Bang/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CA

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

responsible for raising invoices and their subsequent collection. Assets Owned: It has been submitted in TP study that, assessee does not own any significant intangible assets. It only has technical manpower employed and trained by company being most important assets along with furniture fixtures computer peripherals etc. Risks Assumed ... ground that it is functionally different with that of assessee. It has also been observed that this company was owning brand and having substantial intangible assets which cannot be held to be suitable comparable for assessee who was only providing contract software development services and IT staffing services

Red Hat India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/Asstt/CIT/ITO, NFAC, Delhi

ITA 1379/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, A.R. &For Respondent: Ms. Vatsala Jha, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144B

assessee, we are of the considered view that assessee is a limited risk reseller having no plant and equipments, owning no intangible assets, having no expenses on promotions and is not selling its product. So K7 is not a valid comparable vis-à-vis K7, hence ordered to be excluded

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

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for 37

ITA 3373/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.3373/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Te Park, 22B, Doddenakundi Corporation, 2Nd Circle - 2, Large Taxpayer Unit, Phase, Industrial Area, Whitefield Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 7374 C Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sriram Seshadri, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 22.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.02.2022 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 144C

disallowed by the AO both depreciation on G/W arising on merger as well as on the business acquisition on slump sale basis, alleging that intangible asset capitalised as goodwill is fictitious in nature, without any basis. The Ld. AO further attempted to distinguish the decision ... assessee. 27. It was submitted that Goodwill is in the nature of any other commercial or business right under the category of an intangible asset that is eligible for depreciation under section 32 of the Act. The issue whether Goodwill arising on amalgamation is eligible for depreciation

Sabmiller India Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 11(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 7157/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

Foster‟s Australia Ltd) came up before the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court which M/s. Anheuser Busch InBev India Limited concluded that situs of intangible assets is not located in India since the owner i.e. Foster‟s Australia Ltd., was not located in India at the time of transaction. Accordingly

M/S. Infinera India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range- 3, Bangalore

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

ITA 2589/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.2589/Bang/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 80G

repairs and insurance of plant, machinery and furniture • Section 32 provides for depreciation on tangible assets like building, machinery, plant, furniture and also on intangible assets like know-how, patents, trademarks, licenses. • Section 33 allows development rebate on machinery, plants and ships. • Section 34 states conditions for depreciation and development

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2358/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Sri. Sri.Chavali Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Sri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

owns intangibles in the form of intellectual property rights. (e) The annual report indicates that Infosys brand is one of the most important intangible assets owned by the company. 13 IT(TP)A No.2358/Bang/2019 & CO 2/B/2020 M/s.Sharp Software Development India Pvt. Ltd. (f) Infosys has incurred sales and marketing expenditure

Asst CIT Cir 5(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Tolani Shipping Co. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 7035/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7035/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बिधम/ Acit-5(3)(2) M/S. Tolani Shipping Co. Room No.573, Aayakar Ltd. Vs. Bhavan, 5Th Floor, M. K. 10-A, Bakhtawar, Nariman Road, Mumbai-400020. Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact4127C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Mishra (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Satya Prakash सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 22.08.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -58 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2008- 09. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - "1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Restricting The Addition Of Rs.30,96,52,860/- Made By The Ao/Tpo To Rs.12,00,43,750/- On Account Of Profit Split Method, Ignoring That The Tpo Rejected A.Y.2008-09 The Cup Method After Giving Detailed Reasons In The Order Passed U/S 92Ca(3).

For Appellant: Shri Satya PrakashFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Mishra (DR)

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 50Section 92C

highly integrated so as to make the evaluation on individual basis difficult. Nor it can be said that both the party own valuable non-intangible assets for which no comparable data is available. It is also seen that the CIT(A) on the same facts and circumstances for the earlier ... highly integrated so as to make the evaluation on individual basis difficult. Nor it can be said that both the party own valuable non-intangible assets for which no comparable data is available. It is also seen that the CIT(A) on the same facts and circumstances for the earlier

Travelport International Operations Limited, Berkshire vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Int. Tax-3, New Delhi

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

ITA 9711/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 154Section 40Section 40a

circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer and the DRP have erred in not allowing deduction of amortization on all the Intangible assets amounting to USS 70,05,778, on the ground that: a) No amortization/depreciation on Goodwill and Trademark/tradename has been claimed in the UK corporate

M/S. Medi Assist Insurance Tpa Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-12(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1933/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Medi Assist Insurance Tpa Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of Tower ‘D’, 4Th Floor, Ibc Income-Tax, Knowledge Park, 4/1 Bannerghatta Vs. Circle - 4(1)(2), Main Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 029. Pan –Aaccm 8044 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Prabhu, C.A Revenue By : Shri Sumeer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.02.2022 O R D E R Per Beena Pillaithis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- 4, Bangalore Dated 22/3/2018 For The Asst. Year 2011-12 For Computing The Short Term Capital Gain At Rs.7,80,38,353/-. 2. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Before Us “(I) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Dcit & Cit(A) Erred In Computing The Short Term Capital Gain At Rs.7,80,38,353/- By Adding The Negative Net-Worth Instead Of Restricting The Same To Nil As Deeded Cost, Since Cost Cannot Be A Negative Value Page 2 Of 19

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Prabhu, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sumeer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)

Section 142(1)Section 50B

depreciable 3 108 105 assets as per Balance Sheet 2 Non-depreciable 5 tangible assets as per Balance Sheet 3 Non-depreciable 0 intangible assets 4 Other assets 2 A Aggregate value of 10 108 105 assets of the Page 13 of 19 undertaking 1 Secured loans ... full value of consideration received or accruing as a result of transfer of all the depreciable assets, non-depreciable tangible assets, non-depreciable intangible assets and other assets collectively as one unit without assigning value of individual assets comes to `105. As against that, the cost of acquisition and cost

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Flipkart Online Services Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the MA is dismissed

ITA 369/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 40a

lower than the cost price order to attract customers to purchase goods through e-commerce which would be in the nature of acquiring/creating intangible asset in the form of goodwill/Brand value so as to reap benefits in the later years and the loss is capital in nature. 3. The factual ... pricing in order to create marketing intangibles and brand. Having come to the conclusion that the assessee is doing this entire transaction to create intangible assets, the AO went on to calculate the valuation of such intangible. The AO took the database for the wholesalers dealing in consumer and electronic

M/S Herbalife International India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

ITA 3168/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-I(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)

next level thereby enhancing the brand value. From the schedule of fixed assets forming part of the annual report, this company owns significant intangible assets. It is functionally different ad engaged in sale of products as well as services and a product company as evident from extracts of Annual “Report ... Limited placed at paper book page No. 1081, 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(2), Bengaluru vs. M/S Herbal Life International India Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru

ITA 2587/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-I(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)

M/S Herbalife International India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

ITA 2220/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-I(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)

M/S Herbalife International India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

ITA 2219/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-I(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)

Harman Connected Services Corporation India Private Limited (Formerly Known As M/S Core Objects India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

ITA 682/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 92C

assessee has submitted that this company is engaged in the development of software products as it has inventories, intangible assets as well as high expenditure on R&D. Therefore this company is functionally not comparable to the assessee. The Id. AR has referred to the Annual Report of this company ... Further this company has also shown its goodwill in IT(TP)A Nos.682, 632/Bang/2016 Page 20 of 27 its balance sheet and therefore the intangible assets renders this company non-comparable to the assessee. 13.4 We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. This

Srf Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 1, Ltu, New Delhi

Appeals are allowed

ITA 6693/DEL/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: The Hearing Of The Appeal.

Section 28Section 37

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 be accounted as per AS-2 (Valuation of inventories) at a cost or market price, whichever is lower. Since CERs are recognised

Power Exchange India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-14(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 769/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Sunil Nahta.ARFor Respondent: Mr. S.G. Menon. Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(ii)

incurred on acquiring the license is eligible for depreciation @25%. The A.O. has relied on earlier years findings and restricted the depreciation @ 25% on intangible assets and Rs. 28,11,518/- claimed as excess depreciation is disallowed and assessed the total income (Loss