← All Phrases

“commercial rights”

DepreciationSection 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(ii)486 judgments

COROMANDEL INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 738/HYD/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Mar 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.738/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year:2015-16) Coromandel International Vs. Dcit, Limited, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aaacc7852K (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) करदाताका""त"न"ध"व/ : Shri Sp Chidambaram, Advocate Assessee Represented By राज"वका""त"न"ध"व/ : Ms. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr Department Represented By सुनवाईसमा"तहोनेक""त"थ/ : 02/03/2026 Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख/ : 18/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Coromandel International Limited (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 24/02/2025 For The Assessment Year (“A.Y.”) 2015-16. Page 1 Of 17 Coromandel International Limited Vs. Dcit 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 250Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35

following effect : “Sec. 32(i) x x x x (ii) know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, being intangible assets acquired on or after the 1st day of April, 1998, owned, wholly or partly, by the assessee and used ... depreciation of buildings, machinery, plant or furniture, being tangible assets or know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, being intangible assets allowable to the predecessor and the successor in the case of succession referred to in [clause (xiii), clause (xiiib

HYDERABAD RING ROAD PROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED,INDIA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE

In the result Appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4090/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Chinu Bhasin, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

Infrastructure Development Projects Ltd. (supra) held that the rights emanating from such agreements cannot be equated with licenses, franchises, or other business or commercial rights of similar nature so as to qualify for depreciation under the Act. The said ratio of a Hon'ble Madras High Court on the issue ... Page 13 of 23 ITA No. 4090/DEL/2025 CO No. 81/DEL/2025 Hyderabad Ring Road Project Vs ACIT [A.Y. 2017-18] franchises, or other business or commercial rights of similar nature so as to qualify for depreciation under Section 32 the Act as follows: 120. We are of the view that

ACIT, CIRCLE - 10(1), DELHI vs. M/S HYDERABAD RING ROAD PROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result Appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3599/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Chinu Bhasin, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

Infrastructure Development Projects Ltd. (supra) held that the rights emanating from such agreements cannot be equated with licenses, franchises, or other business or commercial rights of similar nature so as to qualify for depreciation under the Act. The said ratio of a Hon'ble Madras High Court on the issue ... Page 13 of 23 ITA No. 4090/DEL/2025 CO No. 81/DEL/2025 Hyderabad Ring Road Project Vs ACIT [A.Y. 2017-18] franchises, or other business or commercial rights of similar nature so as to qualify for depreciation under Section 32 the Act as follows: 120. We are of the view that

ASIRVAD MICRO FINANCE LIMITED,ANNA SALAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE -1(1), CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1139/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1139/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr. P.R. Prasanna Varma, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N., CIT
Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

assets, including intangible assets being goodwill, know-how, Asirvad Micro Finance Ltd. :- 6 -: patents, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, whichever is higher; (b) "venture capital company", "venture capital fund" and "venture capital undertaking" shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(2)(1), MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, CHURCHGATE vs. MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 7035/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2014-15
Section 14ASection 250Section 28Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35D

developing,\ndesigning and upgrading the Mumbai Airport for a period of 30\nyears (extendable by another 30 years) and the assessee was\ngranted substantial commercial rights including the right to collect\ncharges from airport users.\n15. The Co-ordinate Bench also observed that the payment of\nupfront ... result in acquisition of any tangible asset such\nas land, building or machinery, but rather resulted in acquisition of\na commercial right to operate and exploit the airport infrastructure,\nwhich constitutes a business or commercial right of similar nature\nwithin the meaning of section

MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6692/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand V Mahadeokara.Y:2014-15 Mumbai International Vs. Dcit, Circle – 2(2)(1) Airport Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road 1St Floor, Terminal-1B, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – Chhatrpati Shivaji 400020. International Airport, Santacruz (E), Mumbai – 400099. Pan/Gir No. Aaecm6285C (Applicant) (Respondent) A.Y:2014-15 Dcit, Circle – 2(2)(1) Vs. Mumbai International Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road Airport Ltd., New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 1St Floor, Terminal-1B, 400020. Chhatrpati Shivaji International Airport, Santacruz (E), Mumbai – 400099. Pan/Gir No. Aaecm6285C (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Saurabha Soparkar Virtually Appeared Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing 25.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand V Mahadeokar, Am: These Cross Appeals Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Under Section 250 Of The Mumbai International Airport Ltd., Mumbai Income-Tax Act, 1961 Dated 05.08.2025 In The Case Of The Assessee For Assessment Year 2014–15. The Assessment In The Present Case Was Originally Completed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 30.12.2017. Since The Issues Involved In The Appeals Of The Revenue As Well As The Assessee Arise Out Of The Same Appellate Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 28Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35D

OMDA agreement and the nature of rights acquired by the assessee, has consistently held that the upfront concession fee paid to AAI confers commercial rights of similar nature, which qualify as an intangible asset within the meaning of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and therefore depreciation is allowable ... section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, the Co-ordinate Bench held that the upfront fee paid to AAI confers a business or commercial right in the nature of a license, which qualifies as an intangible asset eligible for depreciation. In the said decision, the Tribunal noted that under

ASCENTECH ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1686/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad06 Mar 2026AY 2017-18
For Appellant: MS Sree Lekha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Mathivanan S A, Sr. AR
Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)

issue of\nshares, of its assets, including intangible assets being goodwill,\nknow-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises\nor any other business or commercial rights of similar nature,\nwhichever is higher;\n[aa] “specified fund\" means a fund established or incorporated in\nIndia in the form of a trust

M/S R. S. SHETYE & BROS,PANAJI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), PANAJI

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

ITA 37/PAN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji27 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. No.37/Pan/2023 (A.Y.2016-17) R.S.Shetye & Bros, Vs Acit 1(1), Flat.No.14, 1 St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, . Trionara Apartments, Edc, Patto, New Muncipal Market, Panjim Panaji- Goa-403001. Goa-403001. Pan .No.Aabfr9785N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 3

classified into (a) tangible and (b) intangible assets. The intangible assets are know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature. Perhaps as a safeguard measure Explanation 3 to section 32(1) is pari-materia of section 2(11) to cover both

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. UNICORN PACKAGING LLP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is, accordingly, stands dismissed

ITA 898/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 32(1)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)(c)Section 49(1)(iii)Section 55(2)(a)

paras of the order of the Tribunal (supra) to the effect that (a) goodwill is a part and parcel of “any other business or commercial rights of similar nature” under Explanation 3(b) to section 32(1), and (b) depreciation is allowable on goodwill so arising in amalgamation

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. UNICORN PACKAGING LLP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is, accordingly, stands dismissed

ITA 897/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 32(1)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)(c)Section 49(1)(iii)Section 55(2)(a)

paras of the order of the Tribunal (supra) to the effect that (a) goodwill is a part and parcel of “any other business or commercial rights of similar nature” under Explanation 3(b) to section 32(1), and (b) depreciation is allowable on goodwill so arising in amalgamation

ACIT CC-1(3), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. UNICORN PACKAGING LLP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is, accordingly, stands dismissed

ITA 896/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 32(1)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)(c)Section 49(1)(iii)Section 55(2)(a)

paras of the order of the Tribunal (supra) to the effect that (a) goodwill is a part and parcel of “any other business or commercial rights of similar nature” under Explanation 3(b) to section 32(1), and (b) depreciation is allowable on goodwill so arising in amalgamation

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. UNICORN PACKAGING PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is, accordingly, stands dismissed

ITA 895/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 32(1)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)(c)Section 49(1)(iii)Section 55(2)(a)

paras of the order of the Tribunal (supra) to the effect that (a) goodwill is a part and parcel of “any other business or commercial rights of similar nature” under Explanation 3(b) to section 32(1), and (b) depreciation is allowable on goodwill so arising in amalgamation

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. UNICORN PACKAGING LLP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is, accordingly, stands dismissed

ITA 894/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 32(1)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)(c)Section 49(1)(iii)Section 55(2)(a)

paras of the order of the Tribunal (supra) to the effect that (a) goodwill is a part and parcel of “any other business or commercial rights of similar nature” under Explanation 3(b) to section 32(1), and (b) depreciation is allowable on goodwill so arising in amalgamation

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. UNICORN PACKAGING LLP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is, accordingly, stands dismissed

ITA 893/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 32(1)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)(c)Section 49(1)(iii)Section 55(2)(a)

paras of the order of the Tribunal (supra) to the effect that (a) goodwill is a part and parcel of “any other business or commercial rights of similar nature” under Explanation 3(b) to section 32(1), and (b) depreciation is allowable on goodwill so arising in amalgamation

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), AHMEDABAD vs. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1842/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaasst. Commissioner Of M/S. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Vs. Income-Tax, Corporate House, S.G. Highway, Central Circle 2(3), Nr. Sola Bridge, Thaltej, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380 054 [Pan : Aaaci 5120 L] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant Represented By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit (Dr) Respondent Represented By: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, Ar Date Of Hearing 07.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 O R D E R Per Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble:-

Section 250

goodwill was acquired. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smifs Securities Ltd. has held that goodwill falls within the expression “any other business or commercial rights of similar nature” as ACIT Vs. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Asst. Year : 2016-17 - 12– appearing in Explanation 3(b) to section ... identifiable third-party rights or clientele are acquired. The jurisprudence laid down in Smifs Securities Ltd. and consistently followed thereafter recognizes that “business or commercial rights of similar nature” under Explanation 3(b) to section 32(1) covers a wide ambit of intangible assets including goodwill that is recognized through

S S I MEDIA INDIA PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC-20(1), CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2346/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2346/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# /Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. V.Balaji, C.A ()For Respondent: Mr. Saujanya Ranjan, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 32

treating them as "buildings", ignoring the fact that the structures are either: Temporary structures eligible for 100% depreciation under Income Tax Rules, or Commercial rights eligible for 25% depreciation as intangible assets under Section 32. 3.2 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the classification of the structures as "buildings

M/S STANCE CONSUMER ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-32, DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 in ITA No

ITA 2792/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalita Nos.2791 & 2792/Del/2025 (Assessment Yearss 2016-17 & 2017-18)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

issue of shares, of its assets, including intangible assets being goodwill, know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licenses, franchises or my other business or commercial rights of similar nature, whichever is higher; 18. From the above, it is evident that the fair market value is to be taken either

M/S STANCE CONSUMER ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-32, DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 in ITA No

ITA 2791/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalita Nos.2791 & 2792/Del/2025 (Assessment Yearss 2016-17 & 2017-18)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

issue of shares, of its assets, including intangible assets being goodwill, know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licenses, franchises or my other business or commercial rights of similar nature, whichever is higher; 18. From the above, it is evident that the fair market value is to be taken either

BANDEKAR BROTHERS PRIVATE LIMITED,VASCO-DA-GAMA, GOA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI, GOA

The appeal of the assessee is PARTLY ALLOWED in aforestated terms

ITA 38/PAN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2013-14 Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Post Box No. 11, Suvarna Bandekar Bldg., Swatantra Path, Vasco-Da-Gama Goa-403802 Pan: Aaacb5502B . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: Mr Pramod & Mr Shriniwas Deshpande [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By: Mr M Satish & Mr Renga Rajan [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 12/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/02/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Assessee’S Appeal Filed U/S 253(1) Of The Income-

For Appellant: Mr Pramod & Mr Shriniwas Deshpande [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish & Mr Renga Rajan [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(14)Section 246ASection 250Section 253(1)Section 37(1)

classified into (a) tangible and (b) intangible assets. The intangible assets are know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature. Perhaps as a safeguard measure Explanation 3 to section 32(1) is pari-materia of section 2(11) to cover both

DIABETOMICS MEDICAL PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee\nare partly allowed

ITA 2149/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19
For Appellant: \nCA MV Prasad AndFor Respondent: \nMS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 56(2)(viib)

issue of shares, of its assets,\nincluding intangible assets being goodwill, know-how,\npatents, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises\nor any other business or commercial rights of similar\nnature,\nwhichever is higher;\n[aa] “specified fund” means a fund established or\nincorporated in India in the form of a trust

Showing 1–20 of 486 · Page 1 of 25

...