← 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

Rico Auto Industries Limited, Ludhiana vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Ludhiana

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 703/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.702/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.703/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) M/S Rico Auto Industries Ltd. Pr. Cit-1 बनाम/ B-26, Focal Point Aaykar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar Vs. Ludhiana (Punjab)-141010 Ludhiana (Punjab) - 141001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacr-8724-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) (Virtual) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-10-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. In These Twin Appeals, The Assessee Assails Proposed Revision Of The Assessment Order By Revisionary Authority U/S 263 For Assessment Years (Ay) 2020-21 & 2021-22. Facts Are Stated To Be Identical In Both The Years. First, We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2020-21 Wherein The Assessee Challenges Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) (Virtual) – Ld. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35

manufacturing account) and closing stock of previous year (in trading and manufacturing a/c as per return of income) (ix) Introduction / addition of high value intangible asset during the year (x) Large refund claimed out of advance tax (business ITR) 3.2 During the course of assessment proceedings, various notices were issued ... services’ (FTS) for Rs.12.90 Crores. Subsequently, another show-cause notice was issued on 17-03-2025 identifying more issues viz. (i) Expenses capitalized for intangible assets; (ii) non-verification of income from house property; (iii) Interest on loan to subsidiaries for Rs.285.96 Lacs reduced from computation of income; (iv) genuineness

Rico Auto Industries Limited, Ludhiana vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Ludhiana

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 702/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.702/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.703/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) M/S Rico Auto Industries Ltd. Pr. Cit-1 बनाम/ B-26, Focal Point Aaykar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar Vs. Ludhiana (Punjab)-141010 Ludhiana (Punjab) - 141001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacr-8724-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) (Virtual) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-10-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. In These Twin Appeals, The Assessee Assails Proposed Revision Of The Assessment Order By Revisionary Authority U/S 263 For Assessment Years (Ay) 2020-21 & 2021-22. Facts Are Stated To Be Identical In Both The Years. First, We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2020-21 Wherein The Assessee Challenges Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) (Virtual) – Ld. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35

manufacturing account) and closing stock of previous year (in trading and manufacturing a/c as per return of income) (ix) Introduction / addition of high value intangible asset during the year (x) Large refund claimed out of advance tax (business ITR) 3.2 During the course of assessment proceedings, various notices were issued ... services’ (FTS) for Rs.12.90 Crores. Subsequently, another show-cause notice was issued on 17-03-2025 identifying more issues viz. (i) Expenses capitalized for intangible assets; (ii) non-verification of income from house property; (iii) Interest on loan to subsidiaries for Rs.285.96 Lacs reduced from computation of income; (iv) genuineness

Ecoenergy Insights Ltd ( Formerly Known As Chubb Alba Control Systems P.Ltd), New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 2321/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaecoenergy Insights Ltd., Vs. Dcit, (Formerly Known As Chubb Alba Control Circle 4 (2), Systems P. Ltd.), New Delhi. Ground Floor, 18, Netaji Subhash Marg, Daryaganj, New Delhi – 110 002. (Pan :Aaaca0031C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Shri Parth, Advocate Shri Pratik Rath, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2025 Date Of Order : 10.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Preferred By The Assessees Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 25.07.2022Passed By The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Under Section 147 Read With Section 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Ay 2018-19 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 92C

Indian customer contract for a consideration of US $ 3.2 million to ALC i.e. Rs.20.8 crores. Therefore, the total consideration for such transfer to specified intangible assets as well as Non-Indian customer contract was valued at US $ 64 million. It was further submitted that the above said valuation of transfer

Seema Sureka, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 3(3), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2682/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) : (I) Misc. Receipts Of Rs.96,000/- In Cash Shown As Gifts Received & Offered To Tax; (Ii) Receipt Of A Gift Of Rs. 5,84,000/- From An Huf, Claimed As Exempt U/S 56(2) Of The Act; & (Iii) Receipts Of Rs.2,99,133/- Shown As Profit From Commodity Trading, Albeit On Off-Market Basis.

Section 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

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

Ani Technologies Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax- 1, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1124/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 143(3)Section 263

scrutiny assessment. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer ITA No.1124/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 5 (AO) called for details of additions made towards intangible assets. The assessee furnished a breakup showing purchases of computer software amounting to %2,62,26,888.00, along with supporting party-wise details and submissions ... appeal before us. 5. The learned AR submitted that the AO had in fact made detailed enquiry by calling for breakup of intangible assets, party-wise details of software purchases, and supporting documents, all of which were ITA No.1124/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 5 furnished vide letters dated 20.12.2021. Thus

M/S. Barbeque Nation Hospitality Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

ITA 26/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. A. Shankar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. M. Mahesh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in disallowing the depreciation on intangible assets of a sum of Rs.3,26,25,000/- on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The authorities below failed to appreciate that ... armchair of the businessman and decide as to what consideration ought to have been paid for purchase of assets including intangible assets and consequently the disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets on the premise that the consideration is paid in excess is unsustainable in law on the facts and circumstances

M/S. Barbeque Nation Hospitality Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

ITA 25/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Respondent: Shri. A. Shankar, Sr. Advocate
Section 132Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in disallowing the depreciation on intangible assets of a sum of Rs.3,26,25,000/- on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The authorities below failed to appreciate that ... armchair of the businessman and decide as to what consideration ought to have been paid for purchase of assets including intangible assets and consequently the disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets on the premise that the consideration is paid in excess is unsustainable in law on the facts and circumstances

M/S. Barbeque Nation Hospitality Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 24/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. A. Shankar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. M. Mahesh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in disallowing the depreciation on intangible assets of a sum of Rs.3,26,25,000/- on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The authorities below failed to appreciate that ... armchair of the businessman and decide as to what consideration ought to have been paid for purchase of assets including intangible assets and consequently the disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets on the premise that the consideration is paid in excess is unsustainable in law on the facts and circumstances

M/S. Barbeque Nation Hospitality Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Officer, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

ITA 23/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in disallowing the depreciation on intangible assets of a sum of Rs.3,26,25,000/- on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The authorities below failed to appreciate that ... armchair of the businessman and decide as to what consideration ought to have been paid for purchase of assets including intangible assets and consequently the disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets on the premise that the consideration is paid in excess is unsustainable in law on the facts and circumstances

M/S. Barbeque Nation Hospitality Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 22/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. A. Shankar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. M. Mahesh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in disallowing the depreciation on intangible assets of a sum of Rs.3,26,25,000/- on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The authorities below failed to appreciate that ... armchair of the businessman and decide as to what consideration ought to have been paid for purchase of assets including intangible assets and consequently the disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets on the premise that the consideration is paid in excess is unsustainable in law on the facts and circumstances

M/S. Barbeque Nation Hospitality Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 21/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. A. Shankar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. M. Mahesh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in disallowing the depreciation on intangible assets of a sum of Rs.3,26,25,000/- on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The authorities below failed to appreciate that ... armchair of the businessman and decide as to what consideration ought to have been paid for purchase of assets including intangible assets and consequently the disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets on the premise that the consideration is paid in excess is unsustainable in law on the facts and circumstances

DCIT Circle 3 3 1, Mumbai vs. Xoriant Solutions Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 3676/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj R. Toprani and Ms. Krupa Shah, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)

correct in directing to exclude Comviva Technologies Ltd., R. Systems International Ltd. from the list of comparables because it has Intangible assets without considering that Independent comparables always have intangible assets but comparables without intangibles are mostly subsidiaries of their AEs and get rejected as comparables due to high related ... correct in directing to exclude Comviva Technologies Ltd., R. Systems International Ltd.from the list of comparables because it has intangible assets without consideringthat independent comparables always have intangible assets but comparables without intangibles are mostly subsidiaries of their AEs and get rejected us comparables due to high related party transactions

DCIT Circle 3 3 1, Mumbai vs. Xoriant Solutions Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 3673/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj R. Toprani and Ms. Krupa Shah, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)

correct in directing to exclude Comviva Technologies Ltd., R. Systems International Ltd. from the list of comparables because it has Intangible assets without considering that Independent comparables always have intangible assets but comparables without intangibles are mostly subsidiaries of their AEs and get rejected as comparables due to high related ... correct in directing to exclude Comviva Technologies Ltd., R. Systems International Ltd.from the list of comparables because it has intangible assets without consideringthat independent comparables always have intangible assets but comparables without intangibles are mostly subsidiaries of their AEs and get rejected us comparables due to high related party transactions

Hyderabad Yadgiri Tollway Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr.CIT-1, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1332/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43A

depreciable asset was adjusted from the cost of the assets only. In this regard, he has drawn our attention to Note-3 of Intangible Asset as appearing in Note to Financial Statement for the year ended 31.03.2018. The Ld. AR also relied upon the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court ... under: Sr. Particulars of deduction Amount Remarks No. (Rs.) 1 Amortisation u/s.37 of the Act BOT- 42,08,51,312 Explained in detail Intangible Assets (In terms of CBDT vide succeeding Circular No.9.2014 paragraphs [F.No.225/182/2013/ITA.II], DATED 23.04.2014) 2 Actual loss on repayment of Foreign 28,72,73,150 Actual

Gmm Pfaulder Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr.CIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 839/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.839/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2020-21 Gmm Pfaulder Ltd. The Pr.Cit बनाम/ 3Rd Floor, B-Jadav Chambers Ahmedabad-1 V/S. Navrangpura H.O. Ahmedabad – 380 015 Ashram Road Ahmedabad – 380 009 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aabcg 0563 A (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Ahmedabad-1 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Pr. Cit” For Short] Dated 07/03/2025 Passed In Exercise Of His Revisionary Jurisdiction Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short] For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020- 21. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Gmm Pfaulder Ltd. Vs. Pcit Asst. Year : 2020-21 2

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR
Section 135Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 32Section 80G

provisions of sections 2(11) and 32(1) of the Act, which have been subsequently amended to specifically exclude goodwill from the block of intangible assets eligible for depreciation. He therefore held that the Assessing Officer failed to examine the applicability of the amended law and that the assessment order ... paid for acquisition of business as a going concern, depreciation on such goodwill is allowable under section 32(1) of the Act, being an intangible asset within the meaning of Explanation 3(b). In light of the above binding judicial precedents, the claim of depreciation on goodwill made

Incometax Officer, Chennai vs. Doosan Bobcat India Pvt Ltd, Chennai

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

ITA 2137/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2137/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 & C.O. No. 75/Chny/2025 [In I.T.A. No. 2137/Chny/2025] The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Doosan Bobcat India Pvt. Ltd., Htc Towers, 6Th Floor, No. 41, Gst Corporate Ward 2(1), Chennai. Road, Guindy Industrial Estate, Chennai 600 032. [Pan: Aaccd6529L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ashik Shah, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C.P. Solomon, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.05.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appellant-Revenue Raised 6 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Allowing Assessee’S Claim Of Depreciation Under Section 2

For Appellant: Shri Ashik Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.P. Solomon, JCIT
Section 2Section 32(1)(ii)

depreciation under section 2 I.T.A. No.2137/Chny/25 & CO No. 75/Chny/25 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] on the intangible assets of dealer network, vendor relationship, customer database & relationship and trained employee base in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. It is noted that ... dealer network, vendor relationship, customer database & relationship and trained employee base without appreciating that the said assets do not fall within the scope of intangible assets as defined in Explanation 3(b) to section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. He vehemently argued that the ld. CIT(A) failed

DCIT Circle 2.3.1, Mumbai vs. Prestige Holiday Resorts Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 2 and 3 are

ITA 4162/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 2(11)Section 2(22)(e)Section 253(3)Section 254(1)

assessee during earlier years. In spite of considering the subject asset as ‘intangible asset’ in nature, the AO not allowed consequential depreciation on the said intangible assets. 10. The Ld.CIT(A), on considering the submission of the assessee allowed relief to the assessee by taking view that assessee ... assessee filed written submission. The assessee apart from substantiating its claim for depreciation also stated that despite considering asset as intangible asset, the AO not allowed consequential depreciation on the said intangible asset. 34. We find that ld. CIT(A) allowed relief to the assessee by taking view that assessee

DCIT Circle 2.3.1, Mumbai vs. Prestige Holiday Resorts Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 2 and 3 are

ITA 4161/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 2(11)Section 2(22)(e)Section 253(3)Section 254(1)

assessee during earlier years. In spite of considering the subject asset as ‘intangible asset’ in nature, the AO not allowed consequential depreciation on the said intangible assets. 10. The Ld.CIT(A), on considering the submission of the assessee allowed relief to the assessee by taking view that assessee ... assessee filed written submission. The assessee apart from substantiating its claim for depreciation also stated that despite considering asset as intangible asset, the AO not allowed consequential depreciation on the said intangible asset. 34. We find that ld. CIT(A) allowed relief to the assessee by taking view that assessee

Dosti Realty Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 6129/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Arun Khodpia ()

Section 115JSection 14ASection 37(1)

claim of depreciation by observing as under: “7. In the case of Smifs Securities Ltd., the Supreme Court has held that 'goodwill' is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under the provisions of section 32 of the IT Act. A decision is only an authority for what it actually decides ... transferee company by virtue of scheme implementation as per the directions of Hon'ble High Court. 9. Goodwill falls in the category of "Intangible Assets", but its advantages must be tangible and assessee has to establish on record that by virtue of "Goodwill" what are the financial and non-financial

DCIT, Circle- 2(1), New Delhi vs. Akorn India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6838/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1743/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम Akorn India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, 4Th Floor, Building 9B, Vs. Circle 2(1), Dlf Cyber City, Gurgaon. New Delhi. Pan No.Aajca8290J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2074/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम Acit, Akorn India Pvt. Ltd. Circle 2(1), Room No.153A, Vs. 1105-1106, Ashoka Estate, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aajca8290J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6566/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 बनाम Akorn India Pvt. Ltd. Acit, 4Th Floor, Building 9B, Vs. Circle 2(1), C.R. Building, Dlf Cyber City, Gurgaon. I.P. Estate, New Delhi. Pan No.Aajca8290J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6837/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 बनाम Dcit, Akorn India Pvt. Ltd. Circle 2(1), Room No.153A, Vs. 1105-1106, Ashoka Estate, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aajca8290J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 139(5)Section 50C

Learned AO observed that in the income tax depreciation schedule attached with Annexure to Form 3CD by the assessee, there is no block of intangible assets which include the value of goodwill or amount paid as non-compete fee. 6. The assessee submitted that it had acquired certain business ... that the statutory auditor of the assessee company apparently has not found the amount of Rs 144.09 crores paid towards goodwill qualifying as an intangible asset eligible for claim of depreciation as per the Income Tax Act which is evident from the fact that the income tax depreciation schedule under