← 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

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

ITA 6837/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

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

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

ITA 6567/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

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

ITA 6566/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

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

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Akorn India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2074/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

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

Akorn India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 1743/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

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

Savegenie E-Marketing Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Gurgoan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3847/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

issued 11,500 shares of face value with a premium of ₹63.25 to Shri Upkar Aggarwal though the Company did not have any intangible assets such as payments, copyrights, intellectual properties, rights which would command such premium for the shares. Further, the Assessing Officer noted that as per the balance

Tata Teleservices Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 25(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2549/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.2549/Del./2024, A.Y. 2017-18 Tata Teleservices Limited Assistant Commissioner Of Jeevan Bharati Tower-1, Income Tax, Circle-25(1), 10Th Floor, Vs. C. R. Building, I. P. Estate, 24, Connaught Circus New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaact2438A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Advocate Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advocate & Sh. Shivam Yadav, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 30/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/10/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal Of The Assessee For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.03.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 35DSection 37(1)

Delhi High Court, while upholding the view of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench in treating goodwill as an intangible asset held that the meaning of business or commercial rights of similar nature if understood would mean commercial rights or such rights which are obtained for effectively carrying ... right which is obtained for carrying on the business with effectiveness is likely to fall or come within the sweep of meaning of intangible asset and therefore of capital nature rather than revenue. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Mumbai Bench in case of India Capital Markets (P.) Ltd. (supra), while

JCIT(OSD), CC-1, Lko, Lucknow vs. Acp Tollways Private Limited, Lucknow

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

ITA 131/LKW/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(2)Section 32

erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,49,17,94,856/- made on account of disallowance of depreciation on tangible & intangible asset without appreciating the specific reasons mentioned by A.O. in assessment order for such disallowance. 2. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case ... Right to Collect Toll' was disallowed on following facts: (a) 'Right to Collect Toll' does not fall under any of the categories of 'intangible asset' specified in clause 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (b) The assessee is not a physical owner of the asset i.e. 'Right

Slr Infrastructure Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 544/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Oct 2025AY 2018-19
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263

only Rs.73.93 crores. Since the company claimed and was allowed excess amortization and the cascading effect resulted in excess claim of WDV of intangible assets of Rs.11.41 crores for the year under consideration. Therefore, the Ld.PCIT opined that failure to verify the issues in right perspective of law, in terms ... Rs.73.93 crores and because of this cascading effect for the year under consideration was Rs.10.79 crores, on account of excess claim of WDV of intangible assets. The assessee has explained the issue in light of relevant notes to account and provisions of the Act. According to the assessee

Netflix Entertainment Services India LLP, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax- Circle 23(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly

ITA 6857/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2021-22
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 234ASection 270ASection 40

ISPs. It also undertook local legal and compliance work such as securing licences and approvals. (b) Assets: Netflix India neither owned nor developed any intangible assets. All intellectual property rights, content, service architecture, and trademarks were owned and controlled by Netflix US and NIBV. Tangible assets comprised routine office equipment ... access, invoicing, local customer support, and regulatory compliance; • its tangible assets comprise office premises, IT equipment, and OCAs whose function is logistical; • its intangible assets are nil; • its risks are limited to routine operational and regulatory exposures, all fully indemnified by the AEs; and • it earns a Return on Sales

Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1), Chandigarh vs. M/S Glaxosmithkline Consumer Pvt. Ltd., Nabha

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 121/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 121/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Dcit, M/S Glaxosmithkline Circle 1(1), बनाम Consumer Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh Patiala Road, Vs. Nabha. Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aafcg8415R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate With Sh. Neeraj Jain, Advocate & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca (Virtual) राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate with Sh. Neeraj Jain, Advocate and Ms. Somya Jain, For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 32(1)

Trib.) 18. In view of the aforesaid, since the predecessor, viz. Novartis in the present case, has not claimed depreciation on both tangible and intangible assets forming part of the OTC business transferred to the assessee by way of slump sale, the provisions of sixth proviso to section ... claim of depreciation at 100% of the prescribed rate on both 17 121-Chd-2023 M/s Glaxosmithkline Consumer Pvt. Ltd, Nabha tangible and intangible assets acquired as part of the slump sale. 6. We have considered the findings given by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order

DCIT, Range-3, Lucknow vs. M/S. Prayagraj Power Generation Company Ltd., Noida

In the result, ground no. 1 of appeal is dismissed and ground no

ITA 393/LKW/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow15 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 115J

accordance with the Indian Accounting Standards 109 adjusted on the convergence date; (D) adjustments relating to items of property, plant and equipment and intangible assets recorded at fair value as deemed cost in accordance with paragraphs D5 and D7 of the Indian Accounting Standards 101 on the convergence date

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-16(1), Mumbai vs. Viacom18 Media Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 5658/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Respondent: Shri Nimesh Vora, Ld. Adv
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

ground No.1, which pertains to the depreciation on “non-compete fee” we observe from the assessment order that in the scheme of demerger, intangible asset by name of non-compete fee @ Written Down Value (WDV) of Rs. 329,76,56,250/- was distributed among ETPL, PTVPL and PTPL. The Assessee ... accordingly has acquired intangible asset in the name of “non-compete fee” having WDV value of Rs.112,32,50,625/- as on 01/04/2010 and for the assessment year under consideration, opening WDV worked out at Rs.63,18,28,476/-. The Assessee thus on the said amount, worked out and claimed

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Vodafone Essar Digilink Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1158/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Shri Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

right to use the spectrum and is therefore clearly an expenditure of a capital nature. This right is in the nature of an intangible asset which would bring enduring benefit to the assessee and is therefore capitalized. After allowing depreciation @ 25% amounting to Rs.35,08,26,348/- the remaining amount ... capitalize 'Royalty -WPC expense of Rs. 140,33,05,390/- payable to DOT and in treating the same as a consideration for acquisition of intangible assets. The assessee has submitted that the license agreement entered into by the assessee with the DOT requires the assessee to pay Royalty-WPC charges

Vodafone Digilink Limited, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi

ITA 1073/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2010-11
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

right to use the spectrum and is therefore clearly an expenditure of a capital nature. This right is in the nature of an intangible asset which would bring enduring benefit to the assessee and is therefore capitalized. After allowing depreciation @ 25% amounting to Rs.35,08,26,348/- the remaining amount ... capitalize 'Royalty -WPC expense of Rs.140,33,05,390/- payable to DOT and in treating the same as a consideration for acquisition of intangible assets. The assessee has submitted that the license agreement entered into by the assessee with the DOT requires the assessee to pay Royalty-WPC charges

Brahm Precision Materials Pvt. Ltd., Aurangabad vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 425/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1183/Pun/2023 And

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Bank, “WOS-BC,USA”, “LDC, USA" and Mr. Bhavook Tripathi before the Delaware County Circuit Court, USA for the sale of the remaining unliquidated intangible assets of “WOS-BC,USA” and “LDC, USA” and the assessee was required to pay huge funds. 14. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that

Brahm Precision Materials Pvt Ltd, Aurangabad vs. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1183/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1183/Pun/2023 And

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Bank, “WOS-BC,USA”, “LDC, USA" and Mr. Bhavook Tripathi before the Delaware County Circuit Court, USA for the sale of the remaining unliquidated intangible assets of “WOS-BC,USA” and “LDC, USA” and the assessee was required to pay huge funds. 14. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that

Diwantham Tollway Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -6, Mubmai

In the result, the grounds of appeal

ITA 3711/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Prabhash Shankar(Physical Hearing) Diwantham Tollway Private Limited Pcit – 6, Mumbai Unit No. 603B, 6Th Floor, Godrej Bkkc, Room No. 501, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs Plot No. C-68, G Block, Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400051. [Pan: Aagcd6193G] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 254(1)Section 263Section 32

circumstances of the case and in law, the learned PCIT has erred in holding that the appellant’s claim of depreciation on intangible assets i.e. ‘right to collect toll’ under section 32 of the Act is erroneous and has resulted in underassessment of income.” 2. Brief facts of the case ... under the normal provisions of book profit of Rs. 9.84 crores. The case was selected for scrutiny on the issue of (i) investment in intangible assets (ii) claim of any other amount allowable as deduction in Schedule BP (iii) high creditors/liabilities & (iv) business losses. The assessing officer referred

Franklin Templeton Internaitoanl Services (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) 3(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09 stands partly allowed

ITA 7216/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 133(6)Section 92D

effectively. The assets maintained by FTIS include computers, office equipment, furniture and fixtures and human capital. FTIS does not own any valuable non- routine intangible assets. A snapshot of assets employed by FTIS as on 31 March 2007 is given below: Particulars INR(‘000) Fixed Assets (incl. Capital

Franklin Templeton International Services (I) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 3(1)(OSD), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09 stands partly allowed

ITA 6986/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 133(6)Section 92D

effectively. The assets maintained by FTIS include computers, office equipment, furniture and fixtures and human capital. FTIS does not own any valuable non- routine intangible assets. A snapshot of assets employed by FTIS as on 31 March 2007 is given below: Particulars INR(‘000) Fixed Assets (incl. Capital