← 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

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

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 4539/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92BSection 92C

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

Srf Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 80/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92BSection 92C

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

M/S Gera Developments Pvt. Ltd, Pune vs. PCIT (Central), Pune

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

ITA 1053/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

holding that the Assessing Officer has not applied his mind to the issue of depreciation of Rs. 1,86,95,184/- on the intangible asset in the shape of goodwill. 4. The Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in holding that no inquiry, examination or verification has been ... Commissioner of Income Tax has proceeded on the incorrect assumption that the depreciation is not allowable to the assessee in respect of the impaired intangible asset (goodwill), without appreciating the submissions of the assessee made before him that though the amount of goodwill amounting to Rs.18

Massimo Dutti India Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2252/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarmassimo Dutti India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, Unit No. 1 (Office 1) 8Th Floor, Circle-1(1), Ambience Island, Nh-8, Gurgaon Gurugram, Hayana-122 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aajcm0103G Assessee By : Shri Ravi Sharma, Adv Ms. Shruti Khimta, Adv Ms. Kashish Gupta, Ca Revenue By: Shri S. K. Jadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/12/2025

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Jadav, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

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 Le, resale is made without any value addition having been made Massimo Dutti India

Asirvad Micro Finance Limited, Anna Salai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1140/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1140/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Asirvad Micro Finance Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of No.9, 9Th Floor, Club House Road, Income Tax, Annasalai, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai-600 002 Chennai. [Pan: Aagca5275J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.P.R.Prasanna Varma, Fca & Mr.Arjun Rajagopalan, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Mr.P.R.Prasanna Varma, FCA &For Respondent: Mr.Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 2(18)Section 2(71)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 8

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;(aa)"specified fund

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru vs. Flipkart India Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1395/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 37

that the goods purchased by the assessee and sold in its portal at lesser the cost, the difference would not amount to creation of intangible asset, especially in the circumstances when such sale was controlled transaction and recorded perverse finding? 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in holding ... lesser the cost, the difference between the purchase price and the sale price cannot be considered as expenditure incurred towards acquisition of intangible assets in the form of brand value, Goodwill? 3. Whether the difference of the sale price and the purchase cost can be considered as expenditure for acquisition

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru vs. Flipkart India Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1394/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 37

that the goods purchased by the assessee and sold in its portal at lesser the cost, the difference would not amount to creation of intangible asset, especially in the circumstances when such sale was controlled transaction and recorded perverse finding? 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in holding ... lesser the cost, the difference between the purchase price and the sale price cannot be considered as expenditure incurred towards acquisition of intangible assets in the form of brand value, Goodwill? 3. Whether the difference of the sale price and the purchase cost can be considered as expenditure for acquisition

ACIT, Circle - 3 3 1, Mumbai vs. Jamnagar Utilities and Power Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 5312/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Nimesh Vora/For Respondent: Mr. Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 135Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 43ASection 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 knowhow, patents, trademarks, licenses. Section 33 allows development rebate on machinery, plants and ships. Section 34 states conditions for depreciation and development rebate

ACIT, Circle - 3 3 1, Mumbai vs. Jamnagar Utilities and Power Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 5310/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Respondent: Mr. Nimesh Vora/
Section 115JSection 135Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 43ASection 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 knowhow, patents, trademarks, licenses. Section 33 allows development rebate on machinery, plants and ships. Section 34 states conditions for depreciation and development rebate

DCIT Central Circle 7 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Soyumm Marketing Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue, being ITA no

ITA 4306/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Prabhash Shankardeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle - 7(1) Room No.653, Aaykar Bhawan, Churchgate, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400020 V/S Spectra Realities Private Limited, 9, Floor-I, Plot – 51, Kapadia Chamber, Devji Ratansi Marg, ……………… Respondent Chinchbunder, Mumbai – 400009 Pan: Aalcs7233B Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle - 7(1) Room No.653, Aaykar Bhawan, Churchgate, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400020

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr.AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

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

DCIT Central Circle 7 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Spectra Realties Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue, being ITA no

ITA 4304/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Prabhash Shankardeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle - 7(1) Room No.653, Aaykar Bhawan, Churchgate, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400020 V/S Spectra Realities Private Limited, 9, Floor-I, Plot – 51, Kapadia Chamber, Devji Ratansi Marg, ……………… Respondent Chinchbunder, Mumbai – 400009 Pan: Aalcs7233B Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle - 7(1) Room No.653, Aaykar Bhawan, Churchgate, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400020

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr.AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

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

Marvell India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1608/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudharym/S. Marvell India Private Limited 10Th Floor, Tower D & E Global Technology Park, Marathahalli Outer Ring Road Devarabeesanahalli Village Varthurhobli Bangalore 560 103 ………. Appellant [Pan: Aaecm5559R]

For Appellant: Sri Chavali NarayanFor Respondent: Sri Muthu Shankar
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 200ASection 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 270ASection 274Section 28

made by the Assessee during the relevant previous year under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act in respect of goodwill on intangible assets. 7.1. On perusal of records, we find that during the relevant previous year, the Assessee had entered into two separate Business Transfer Agreements to acquire business ... slump sale transactions. It has been contended on behalf of the Assessee that under the aforesaid BTAs, the Assessee had acquired intangible assets on which assessee was eligible to claim deduction @25% u/s 32(1)(ii) of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessee filed submissions, dated

Viacom 18, Media Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT-8, Mumbai

ITA 2591/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Agarwal/Ms. MokshaFor Respondent: Mr. Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 32

goodwill on acquisition of Studio 18 and the balance amount of Rs.7,55,90,173 pertains to depreciation on Voot platform (which is an intangible asset) and not goodwill. Short-grant of carry forward of losses 7. erred in determining the amount of carried forward losses at Rs.6 ... facts qua the issue in dispute of depreciation on goodwill are that during the year under consideration the assessee claimed depreciation on goodwill and intangible assets having details as under: Sr. No Particulars Amount (Rs.) Remarks by the Assessee li. Depreciation on goodwill on acquisition of Studio 18 (a division

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Siyaram Silk Mills Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 2941/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Girish Agrawalassistant Commissioner Of Vs. Siyaram Silk Mills Income Tax Limited Room No. 506, 5Th Floor, B5, Trade World, Aaykar Bhavan, M K Road, Kamala City, Senapati Churchgate, Bapat Margf, Lower Mumbai- 400020 Parel West, Mumbai- 400013 Pan/Gir No. Aaacs6995D (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 250Section 32Section 32(1)

recognition of self-generated goodwill as an asset and Section 32(1) of the Income Tax Act, read with Explanation 3, contemplates depreciation on intangible assets that are acquired and recognized as such whereas intangible assets arising out of mere Ground2. Investment Written Off (Rs. 6,01,54,400/-)- Contribution ... legal issue of allowability of goodwill upon amalgamation, Section 32 of the Act which provides for allowance of depreciation deals with both tangible and intangible assets. In respect of intangible assets, the section provides an inclusive definition of intangibles that are covered for the purpose of depreciation. The section covers

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Bahwan Cybertek Pvt Ltd, Chennai

ITA 1836/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1836/Chny/2024 & C.O.No.62/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.: 1836/Chny/2024) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Bahwan Cybertek Private Limited, Vs. No.148, Bahwan Cybertek It Park, Rajiv Gandhi Salai (Omr), Okkiyam, Thoraipakkam, Chennai - 600 097. [Pan: Aabcb- 2020-P] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/ Cross Objector) It(Tp) A No.: 22/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bahwan Cybertek Private Limited, No.148, Bahwan Cybertek It Park, Rajiv Gandhi Salai (Omr), Okkiyam, Thoraipakkam, Chennai - 600 097. [Pan: Aabcb- 2020-P] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Department By : Shri. N. V. Balaji, Advocate : Shri. Ar. V. Sreenivasan, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 : 21.11.2025 आदेश /O R Der Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : These Appeals Are Filed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -16, Chennai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld.Cit(A)”] For The

For Respondent: Shri. N. V. Balaji, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 92C

revenue expenditure. 24. Before us, the Ld.DR strongly relied on the findings of the AO that the said expenses were incurred for creating an intangible assets which has enduring benefits to the assessee. The Ld. DR drew our attention to Page 458 to 467 of the paper book filed before ... incurred towards purchase of software and hardware consumables which were consumed/utilized for the customer contracts and accordingly, does not result in creation of any intangible asset having enduring benefit. 26. We have carefully heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on records and gone through the orders

New Mangalore Port Road Company Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1053/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.1053/Del/2025, A.Y. 2015-16 New Mangalore Port Road Deputy Commissioner Of Company Limited, Income Tax, Circle-16(1), D-21, Corporate Park, Vs. C. R. Building, I P Estate, Sector-21, Dwarka, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabcn9106E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Khushboo Singhal, Ca Respondent By Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 21/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2015-16 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.09.2022 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

Section 271(1)(c)Section 32Section 36(1)(iii)

during the course of assessment proceedings it is seen that the assessee has claimed huge depreciation of Rs.74,41,47,30.5/- in respect of intangible assets (which is Toll Road). Vide order sheet entry dated 30.11.2018 assessee was asked to furnish explanation in this regard, in response to the query

Signode India Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

ITA 240/HYD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri H. SrinivasuluFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 32

existing clientele was considered to be goodwill and thereby, eligible 16 ITA.No.434/Hyd/2021 & ITA 240/Hyd/2023 M/s. Signode India Limited for tax depreciation on intangible asset”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed that, “Explanation-3 states that, the expression “asset” shall mean an intangible asset, being know-how, patents, copyrights ... assessee claimed Depreciation of Rs. 106,30,21,315/- as per Act, of which Depreciation on tangible assets is Rs.407.88 lakhs and on intangible assets of 4404.43 lakhs. In detail, the assessee has purchased a packaging unit of M/s ITW lndia Limited for a consideration of Rs.1240 crores on slump

Signode India Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

ITA 434/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri H. SrinivasuluFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 32

existing clientele was considered to be goodwill and thereby, eligible 16 ITA.No.434/Hyd/2021 & ITA 240/Hyd/2023 M/s. Signode India Limited for tax depreciation on intangible asset”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed that, “Explanation-3 states that, the expression “asset” shall mean an intangible asset, being know-how, patents, copyrights ... assessee claimed Depreciation of Rs. 106,30,21,315/- as per Act, of which Depreciation on tangible assets is Rs.407.88 lakhs and on intangible assets of 4404.43 lakhs. In detail, the assessee has purchased a packaging unit of M/s ITW lndia Limited for a consideration of Rs.1240 crores on slump

Highradius Technologies Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -2(1), Hyderabad

ITA 436/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad12 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Us:

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144B

paras 2.4.3.1 & 2.4.12.1 to 2.4.12.12 above. 2.5.10.4 With regard to the plea that the company has significant intangibles, we note that the value of intangibles assets shown in the balance sheet (Note 3.(ii) -Page 74) represent the computer software. The value of intangible assets ... provider to its AE. Apart from that, we find that Infosys Limited has a huge brand value and continues to own and create significant intangible assets. Further, we find that the scale of operation of Infosys Limited is significantly higher than that of the assessee company before

M/S. Ambattur Developers Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-1(1), Chennai

ITA 2601/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2601/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Ambattur Developers Private Limited, (Amalgamated With Ambattur Hotels Private Limited) No. 86/E2, Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai - 600 058. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aaeca-7490-D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Corporate Ward- 1(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : Shri. Bipin, C.N., Cit सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2025 : 11.11.2025 आदेश /Order Per S.R.Raghunatha, Am : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Nfac, Delhi, (In Short Ld.Cit(A)) For The Assessment Year 2015-16, Vide Order Dated 12.08.2024. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: :-2-:

For Respondent: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

facilities is well worth the Rs.365.12 Crores and the total tangible assets Rs.470.11 Crores as taken by the Appellant and the value of intangible assets at Rs.26 Crores as given by Registered valuers. Neither the AO or the CIT(A) have not given any reason