← All Phrases

“depreciation on trademark”

DepreciationSection 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(ii)16 judgments

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 294/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2021-22
For Appellant: \nShri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: \nShri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

depreciation on\ntrademarks. Once the statute expressly includes trademarks,\ndepreciation cannot be denied on conjectures or overlapping concepts\nwith goodwill. The disallowance of depreciation on trademarks is\ntherefore liable to be deleted outrightly.\n24.11 Regarding the business contract, the assessee submitted that\nbusiness contracts acquired as part of the transfer

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 293/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

There is no dispute regarding ownership or use of trademarks by the assessee. The AO has not provided any cogent reason for disallowing depreciation on trademarks. Once the statute expressly includes trademarks, depreciation cannot be denied on conjectures or overlapping concepts with goodwill. The disallowance of depreciation on trademarks ... Nos.290 - 294/Bang/2025 Page 20 of 53 depreciation. There is no dispute regarding ownership or use of trademarks by the assessee. Therefore, on merits, depreciation on trademarks is allowable, and the Assessing Officer was not justified in denying the same without any cogent reasoning. Goodwill and its distinction from Trademarks

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 292/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

There is no dispute regarding ownership or use of trademarks by the assessee. The AO has not provided any cogent reason for disallowing depreciation on trademarks. Once the statute expressly includes trademarks, depreciation cannot be denied on conjectures or overlapping concepts with goodwill. The disallowance of depreciation on trademarks ... Nos.290 - 294/Bang/2025 Page 20 of 53 depreciation. There is no dispute regarding ownership or use of trademarks by the assessee. Therefore, on merits, depreciation on trademarks is allowable, and the Assessing Officer was not justified in denying the same without any cogent reasoning. Goodwill and its distinction from Trademarks

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 291/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19
For Appellant: \nShri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: \nShri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

depreciation on\ntrademarks. Once the statute expressly includes trademarks,\ndepreciation cannot be denied on conjectures or overlapping concepts\nwith goodwill. The disallowance of depreciation on trademarks is\ntherefore liable to be deleted outrightly.\n24.11 Regarding the business contract, the assessee submitted that\nbusiness contracts acquired as part of the transfer

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 290/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

There is no dispute regarding ownership or use of trademarks by the assessee. The AO has not provided any cogent reason for disallowing depreciation on trademarks. Once the statute expressly includes trademarks, depreciation cannot be denied on conjectures or overlapping concepts with goodwill. The disallowance of depreciation on trademarks ... Nos.290 - 294/Bang/2025 Page 20 of 53 depreciation. There is no dispute regarding ownership or use of trademarks by the assessee. Therefore, on merits, depreciation on trademarks is allowable, and the Assessing Officer was not justified in denying the same without any cogent reasoning. Goodwill and its distinction from Trademarks

LOTUS DESTINATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,KCOHI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIR 1(1), KOCHI

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

ITA 413/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.

For Appellant: Shri P. Sanjay, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 270A

also disallowed depreciation on laptop costing Rs. 40,506/- by holding that the same was purchased in cash. The AO also disallowed depreciation on Trademark for failure of the assessee to produce the bills in support of the same. The AO further disallowed

WNS GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASESSMENT UNIT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 4432/MUM/2024[AY 2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2025

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankarwns Global Services Private Vs Assessment Unit, National Faceless Limited, Mumbai Assessment Centre, New Delhi Pl-10/11, Gate No.4, Godrej- Boyce Complex, Pirojshanagar, L.B.S.Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400 079 Pan: Aaacw2598L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: ShriPorus Kaka A/w Manish KanthFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar (CIT DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 253

depreciation on goodwill amounting to Rs.8,88,46,444/- acquired from Value Edge. In accordance with Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, depreciation on trademarks and similar intangible assets is allowable, and notably, no disallowance was made under this head in earlier assessment years

VIRBAC ANIMAL HEALTH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-3(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 2239/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicialmember & Smt. Renu Jauhrivirbac Animal Health India Dcit 3(3)(1), Vs. Pvt Ltd., Room.No.1607, 6Th Floor, Western Edge I, 16 Th Floor, Western Express Highway, Air India Building, Borivali ( East) So, Nariman Point, Mumbai -400066 Mumbai-400021. Pan/Gir No. Aaccv2316F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 32Section 37

appeal: 1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal), NFAC, erred in upholding the action of the Ld. AO, NEAC in disallowing Depreciation on Trademarks of Rs. 2,79,60,213/- under section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 'the Act'). 2 Virbac Animal Health Ind Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

TITAN COMPANY LIMITED 9EARSTWHILE KNOWN AS TITAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED),KRISHNAGIRI vs. ACIT LTU 1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 518/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri T. Surya Narayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

Facts being pari-materia the same, we substantially confirm the stand of lower authorities in this regard except the issue of allocation of depreciation on trademark. In the paper-book, the assessee has filed an application u/r 29 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 for admission of additional evidences ... assessee that the units which are eligible to claim deduction u/s 80-IC caters only to the domestic markets and therefore, depreciation on trademark could not be allocated to the said units as the trademark is put to use only in respect of watches exported. Admitting the same, we direct

TITAN COMPANY LIMITED 9EARSTWHILE KNOWN AS TITAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED),KRISHNAGIRI vs. ACIT LTU 1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 507/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri T. Surya Narayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

Facts being pari-materia the same, we substantially confirm the stand of lower authorities in this regard except the issue of allocation of depreciation on trademark. In the paper-book, the assessee has filed an application u/r 29 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 for admission of additional evidences ... assessee that the units which are eligible to claim deduction u/s 80-IC caters only to the domestic markets and therefore, depreciation on trademark could not be allocated to the said units as the trademark is put to use only in respect of watches exported. Admitting the same, we direct

TITAN COMPANY LIMITED 9EARSTWHILE KNOWN AS TITAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED),KRISHNAGIRI vs. ACIT LTU 1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 506/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri T. Surya Narayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

Facts being pari-materia the same, we substantially confirm the stand of lower authorities in this regard except the issue of allocation of depreciation on trademark. In the paper-book, the assessee has filed an application u/r 29 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 for admission of additional evidences ... assessee that the units which are eligible to claim deduction u/s 80-IC caters only to the domestic markets and therefore, depreciation on trademark could not be allocated to the said units as the trademark is put to use only in respect of watches exported. Admitting the same, we direct

TITAN COMPANY LIMITED 9EARSTWHILE KNOWN AS TITAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED),KRISHNAGIRI vs. ACIT LTU 1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 505/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri T. Surya Narayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

Facts being pari-materia the same, we substantially confirm the stand of lower authorities in this regard except the issue of allocation of depreciation on trademark. In the paper-book, the assessee has filed an application u/r 29 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 for admission of additional evidences ... assessee that the units which are eligible to claim deduction u/s 80-IC caters only to the domestic markets and therefore, depreciation on trademark could not be allocated to the said units as the trademark is put to use only in respect of watches exported. Admitting the same, we direct

TRANSWORLD FURTICHEM PVT LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3 (4), MUMBAI

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

ITA 3181/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal

Section 115J

section 115JB of the Act. 8. The appellant prays that: a. Delete the Disallowance of Rs. 1,68,42,855/- on account of Depreciation on Trademark.. b. Delete the addition of Rs. 26,80,542/- in Book profit. c. The Appellant plead before Honorable ITAT to add, alter ... submissions through e-proceedings on ITBA. The Assessing Officer (AO) on perusal of the financial statements found that the assessee has claimed depreciation on trademark arising out of amalgamation and the details were called from the assessee. Whereas the AO was not satisfied with the explanations filed by the assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE-9(1), NEW DELHI vs. FABINDIA OVERSEAS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

ITA 8288/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rajan Bhatia, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr. DR
Section 197ASection 234CSection 32Section 40Section 48

facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing the claim of Fabindia Oveerseas Pvt. Ltd. depreciation on trademark amounting to Rs. 22,24,732 under Section 32 of the Act. 1.2. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the Joint Commissioner ... Income Tax, Special Range-3, New Delhi ("AO") to compute depreciation on trademark acquired by the Appellant in the financial year 2006-07 on the WDV to be derived on the basis of value to be computed by the Transfer Pricing Officer in the order for AY 2007-08, pursuant

FABINDIA OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JOINT CIT SPECIAL RANGE-3, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 7980/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rajan Bhatia, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr. DR
Section 197ASection 234CSection 32Section 40Section 48

facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing the claim of Fabindia Oveerseas Pvt. Ltd. depreciation on trademark amounting to Rs. 22,24,732 under Section 32 of the Act. 1.2. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the Joint Commissioner ... Income Tax, Special Range-3, New Delhi ("AO") to compute depreciation on trademark acquired by the Appellant in the financial year 2006-07 on the WDV to be derived on the basis of value to be computed by the Transfer Pricing Officer in the order for AY 2007-08, pursuant

TITAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HOSUR vs. JCIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2239/CHNY/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana (Sr. Advocate) for Ms. Manasa Ananthan (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar (CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92A(1)

each unit and the appellant's allocation is the closest approximation to the actual expenditure allocable to the unit. Ground 4.2: Apportionment of depreciation on Trademarks a. The learned AO is has erred in allocating depreciation on Trademarks to the units claiming deduction under section 80IC ... Transfer Pricing Addition of Royalty on Sales; (iii) Disallowance u/s 14A; (iv) Disallowance of loans written- off; (v) Apportionment of Expenses including depreciation on trademark to compute deduction u/s 80-IC; (vi) Nature of Application Software expenditure; (vi) TDS Credit; & (vii) Interest u/s 234B / 234C. 4. Transfer Pricing Adjustment