“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. Altimetrik India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2511/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)(c)

assets said to be acquired are in the nature of business or commercial rights and has not submitted valuation report for valuing the intangible assets ie goodwill, without appreciating the facts of the case. 2.6. The Hon'ble DRP erred in not appreciating the fact that the goodwill on amalgamation ... number of days for which the assets were used by them. It is submitted that in the facts of the current case, the intangible asset in the form of goodwill was acquired by the assessee as a capital right on amalgamation and was valued at Rs.27

M/S First American (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-11(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 43/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-I(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10A

suggests that the company is an entrepreneurial company engaged in performing additional functions over and above routine functions by assuming high risks and developing intangible assets, which is completely unlike the functions performed and risks assumed by the Appellant. Furthermore, during the financial year 2009-10, Accentia acquired IQ group

M/S Hassan Co-Operative Milk Producers Societies Union Ltd, Hassan vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Hassan

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

ITA 1509/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, D.R

Section 2Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80HSection 80ISection 80P(2)(e)

furniture, being tangible assets; (ii) know-how, patents, copyrights, trade marks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, being intangible assets acquired on or after the 1st day of April, 1998, owned, wholly or partly, by the assessee and used for the purposes

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

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

ITA 2586/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-I(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10A

M/S. Acusis Software India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Bengaluru

ITA 2702/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2702/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Acusis Software India The Deputy Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 17/2, Dollars Chamber, Income Tax, Lalbagh Road, Circle – 1(1)(2), Bangalore – 560 027. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aadca2415P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Chavali Narayan, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 01-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order 12.10.2017 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore Relating To Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Revised & Modified Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law. Acusis Software India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As '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'] Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act. 1961 ('The Act') On The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, CA

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 271(1)(c)

revenue authorities, it is ascertained that assessee is a pure captive service provider rendering ITES services to its Associated Enterprises that do not own intangible assets and bears less than minimum risk. The Ld.AR has placed reliance on the following decisions for exclusion of these comparables. a) ISG Novasoft Technologies

ACIT Cir- 2(1) (1), Mumbai vs. Infrasoft Technologies Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 261/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KishnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain (Sr. AR)

Section 143(2)Section 32(1)

offers solutions and services for banks and financial institutions in India and abroad. On verification, it was found that the assessee has shown intangible assets as on 31.03.2015 i.e., goodwill amounting to Rs.2,70,55,743/- and in customer contract amounting to Rs.3,44,34,585/-. It is also mentioned ... such assets was disallowed. Show cause notice was issued to the assessee and after the reply of the assessee, depreciation/amortization claimed on such intangible asset on goodwill amounting to Rs.67,63,935/- and on customer contract amounting to Rs.86,08,646/- claimed on such alleged intangible assets was disallowed

Vodafone Idea Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr CIT -5, Mumbai

ITA 780/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Dharamveer Singh, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 32(1)Section 35A

same on the ground that the spectrum was only an extension of the original license for operating telecom services and not a separate intangible asset. The Appellant prays that it be held that on the facts and Circumstances, invoking section 263 for directing disallowance of depreciation on Spectrum cost ... paid for spectrum. However, for the income tax purposes the assessee company capitalized the item and claimed depreciation @ 25% treating the spectrum as an ‘intangible asset’. The assessee company by filing return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 declared total income at Rs.4350,27,68,335/- by claiming depreciation

ACIT, Circle- 6(1), New Delhi vs. Ch2M Hill (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 5525/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mrinal Kumar Das, Senior DR

Section 143(3)Section 92C

employs routine tangible assets required in rendering the above-mentioned technical consultancy services. The Appellant does not own or develop any significant non-routine intangible assets. Any significant intangible assets used by the 11 Appellant in its operations in India are owned by its overseas parent company. Risk profile

Dy CIT 6 (2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Credtalpha Alternative Investment Advisors Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 7056/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishithe Dy. Commissioner Of Credtalpha Alternative Income Tax 6(2) (1) Investment Advisors Pvt Ltd Room No. 504, 8Th Floor, Ashford Centre, Aykar Bhavan Vs. Shankar Rao Narayan Marg Maharishi Karve Road , Lower Parel , Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 Pan No. Aaecc6357K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rahul SardaFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar DR

Section 56

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; 18. Thus

Geodis Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4771/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora, Sr. DR

Section 234BSection 234DSection 250(6)Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

comes to 5 ITA.No.4771/Del./2018 Geodis Overseas Private Limited, Gurgaon. Rs.1,55,34,890/-. Since goodwill is not covered within the meaning of intangible assets which means only know-how, patent, copyrights, trademarks, license, franchisee on any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, therefore, the A.O. asked ... convertible into INK 147,800,975(valuation report enclosed as Annexure 2) –  Tangible assets in the form of laptops/desktops; and  Intangible assets being, supplier contracts, workforce under logistic division and the right to provide to IBM India with logistics services for a period of 15 years. The tangible assets acquired

Serco India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1460/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1460/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Serco India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 6Th Floor, Tower-B, Building No. 8, Circle-2, Dlf Cyber City, Phase-Ii, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajcs6704P Assessee By : Sh. Suraj Bhan Nain, Ca Revenue By : Sh. M. Baranwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.01.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Suraj Bhan Nain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. M. Baranwal, Sr. DR

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

above, it may kindly be seen that Infosys Technologies Limited is functionally dissimilar; it has huge sales/turnover of Rs. 20,264 Crores having substantial intangible assets, incurring huge amount on R&D for development of new area of functions and it owns branded or propriety products. Further, this company ... help drive growth going forward.” 36. Tata Consultancy Services Limited is functionally dissimilar; it has huge sales/turnover of Rs. 21,947.76 Crores having substantial intangible assets, incurring huge amount on R&D for development of new area of functions and it owns branded or propriety products. Further, this company

I.B. Communications Network Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3(1)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 623/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Sri.Nischal B, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 234BSection 56(2)(viib)

Nomura Services India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2303/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalenomura Services India Vs. Dcit – Circle 10(3) Pvt Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 10Th Floor, Nomura, Mk Road, Off High Street, Mumbai – 400020. Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai – 400076. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcl0053C Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Faruk Irani & Mr Sumin Mehta.Ar Respondent By : Mrs.Vatsala Jha. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Act In Pursuance To Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) U/Sec144C(5) Of The Act Dated 07.09.2012. Nomura Services India P Ltd., Mumbai. 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal As Under:

For Appellant: Mr.Faruk Irani &For Respondent: Mrs.Vatsala Jha. DR

Section 143(3)

Infosys Technologies Ltd: the company has a turnover of Rs.15,648 crores and is not functionally comparable and has global brand with the intangible assets and functional dissimilarity with diverse business operations. The company has huge economic differences in size and market pricing and position. The comparable has high risk

DCIT, Circle- 11(2), New Delhi vs. Hughes Communication India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals being ITA No

ITA 5827/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Dcit Vs Hughes Communication India Ltd. Cirlce-11(2) 1, Shivaji Marg, Westend Greens, New Delhi Nh-8, New Delhi Aaach0765L Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2013-14] & [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Acit Vs Hughes Communication India Ltd. Cirlce-11(2) 1, Shivaji Marg, Westend Greens, New Delhi Nh-8, New Delhi Aaach0765L Appellant Respondent Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv & Sh. Deepesh Appellant By Jain, Ca Respondent By Sh. Vinay Kumar Karan Cit(Dr) & Sh. Kumar Padmapani Bora , Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 31.12.2021

view that by paying license fee the assessee got the right to use telecommunication spectrum and the license so acquired should be treated as intangible assets hence, the assessee was entitled to claim the depreciation on the same. But in the instant case, the assessee claimed it as revenue expenditure

Frick India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our

ITA 330/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate and Shri Pulkit Verma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar Varma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 251(2)Section 263Section 94(7)

assets as Finance (No.2) Act, 1998 has substituted sub section (1) of section 32 and provision has been made to allow depreciation on intangible assets like know how, patents., copy rights, trade marks, licenses, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, being intangible assets acquired

Frick India Ltd vs. DCIT Circle-11 (1)

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our

ITA 2072/DEL/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2021AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate and Shri Pulkit Verma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar Varma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 251(2)Section 263Section 94(7)

M/S Software Paradigms Infotech Private Limited, Mysore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Mysore

ITA 2828/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2828/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Software Paradigms The Assistant Infotech Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 316-318, Spi City, Income Tax, Hebbal Industrial Area, Circle – 1 (1), Mysuru – 570016. Mysuru. Vs. Pan: Aalcs7583C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri G.S. Prashanth, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 29-11-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-12-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Assessment Order Dated 24.10.2017 Passed By The Acit, Circle – 1 (1), Mysuru U/S. 143(3) R.W. 92Ca R.W. 144C(5) Of The Act For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. 1. The Orders Of The Tpo / Drp / Assessing Officer In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant, Are Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Natural Justice, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Appellant Denies Itself To Be Assessed On A Total Income Of Rs. 10,50,75,429/- As Against Income Of Rs. 6,77,58,220/- As Declared By The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Prashanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 92C

owns routine assets like computer equipment, network equipment, software and applications. It is also been submitted that assessee does not own any nonroutine valuable intangible assets. Risks assumed: It has been submitted that assessee acted merely as sub contractor of services and therefore it bears limited contract risk as compared

M/S. Finastra Software Solutions (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2695/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.2695/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Finastra Software Solutions (India) Vs. The Acit, Private Limited, Circle - 4(1)(2), [Formerly Known As Misys Software Solutions Bengaluru. (India) Pvt. Ltd.,], 4Th To 6Th Floor, North Tower, Virgo Building, Bagmane Constellation, Bengaluru – 500 037. Pan : Aaack 9067 G Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Advocate Respondent By : Shri. Arunkumar, Cit(Tp-2)(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 16.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2021 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Final Order Of Assessment Dated 06.10.2017 Of Acit, Circle – 4(1)(2), Bengaluru, Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) In Relation To Ay 2013-2014. 2. The Issue That Arises For Consideration In The Above Appeal Pertains To The Aggregate Transfer Pricing Adjustment (“Tp Adjustment”) Of Rs.14,33,66,140/- Made By The Transfer Pricing Officer (‘The Tpo’ For Short) Towards The International Transactions Of Provision Of Software Development Services (Rs.13,56,24,957/-) & Information Technology Enabled Services

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Arunkumar, CIT(TP-2)(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 92

product engineering, acquisition and development, consultancy and solutions. The company also undertakes significant research and development operations, approved by the government, as evidenced by intangible assets capitalised by the company, and has spent Rs. 27.87 million in FY 2012-13 towards R & D activity. Such R & D costs have also

Nokia India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-6, New Delhi

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

ITA 6502/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 40Section 928Section 92C(1)

phone number enquiries. These services are in the nature of Advertising Services. He submitted that no segmental data is available. The company owns significant intangible assets in the form of goodwill, application development and unique phone numbers. Further, he placed reliance on the website extract of the company placed ... search engine which assists general public in finding information pertaining to nearby area. Further, no segmental data is available and the company owns significant intangible assets in the form of goodwill, application development and unique phone numbers. We, therefore, hold that this is not a valid comparable and direct

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6620/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) Srf Limited Vs. Acit The Galleria, Dlf Mayur Circle – 1, Vihar, Unit No.236 & 237, Ltu 2Nd Floor, Mayur Place, New Delhi Noida Link Road, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, Extension, Delhi-110 091 Pan : Aaacs 0206 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep Dinodia, C.A. Revenue By Ms. Meera Srivastava, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 16.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.12.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am :

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

case of CIT vs. Smifs Securities Ltd. [2012] 24 taxmann.com 222 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that goodwill amounts to intangible assets which are eligible for depreciation. He further submitted that identical issue arose in assessee’s own case in A.Y. 2012-13 wherein ... Tribunal has held the goodwill to be intangible assets and eligible for depreciation. He pointed to the copy of the relevant portion of the order which is at Page 117 of the Paper Book. He submitted that the Hon’ble Tribunal had allowed the claim of depreciation on goodwill