← All Phrases

“Section 32(1)(ii)”

Section References (mined)Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)412 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 32(1)(ii) is CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd. (348 ITR 302), cited in 540 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 32(1)(ii)

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.

CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd.
341 ITR 385 · 2012 · High Court
270
citing judgments

A provision for doubtful debts cannot be added back while computing book profits under Section 115JB of the Income-tax Act for Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) purposes.

Munjal Sales Corporation v. CIT
298 ITR 298 · 2008 · Supreme Court
191
citing judgments

The Supreme Court approves the mixed fund theory, holding that no interest disallowance is warranted under section 36(1)(iii) if investments or advances are made from the assessee's own non-interest bearing funds, even when mixed funds are available. This presumption applies when non-interest bearing funds are sufficient to meet the investments.

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.

Income Tax-III, Pune v. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona
89 Taxmann.com 127 · 2018 · Supreme Court
130
citing judgments

The claim of depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act for assets used by charitable trusts is permissible, affirming the Bombay High Court's view that such a claim does not amount to a 'double benefit'.

CIT v. Associated Cement Companies Ltd.
172 ITR 257 · 1988 · Supreme Court
126
citing judgments

An expenditure is classified as either capital or revenue; the 'enduring benefit' test is a key criterion for this distinction, and income tax law does not generally recognize deferred revenue expenditure unless specifically provided.

CIT v. Karnataka Power Corporation
247 ITR 268 · 2001 · Supreme Court
124
citing judgments

Income earned during the project construction stage, which has a direct nexus or is inextricably linked to the project's setting up, constitutes a capital receipt not liable to tax and reduces the project cost.

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.

Judgments citing Section 32(1)(ii)

Wns Global Services P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/Asstt/CIT/ITO, Nationa Faceless Assessment Centre, Dilhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1259/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalwns Global Services Pvt. Ltd., Pl 10, Gate No.4, Godrej & Boyce Complex, Pirojshanagar, Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400079. Pan: Aaacw2598L ...... Appellant Vs.. Addl./Jt/Dy./Acit/Ito/Nfac, Room No. 455, Circle-14(3)(1), Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant/Assessee By : Sh. Porus Kaka, Sr. Adv. & Sh. Manish Kant Respondent/Revenue By : Sh. Jasdeep Singh, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Porus Kaka, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Jasdeep Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92B

depreciation @25% on same on written down value basis amounting to Rs 39,03,28,049 for AY 2016-17 in terms of Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. The adjustment made by the AO/TPO in the draft order with respect to depreciation on intangibles is as follows: Particulars ... Assessee acquired a commercial right i.e. right to receive all revenues; have all the obligations and liabilities with respect to the said contracts. Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act allows deduction of depreciation in case of intangible assets being know- how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises or any other

Jm Morgan Stanley Securities P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 4(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 7118/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M. LalaFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 40Section 40A(2)

entitled to depreciation on BSE membership card, as the said right of membership is a licence or akin to licence in terms of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. In the present case, the claim of the assessee was denied by placing reliance upon the decision ... Techno Shares and Stocks Ltd (supra), other intangible assets/goodwill do not fall in any category of intangible assets enumerated under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and thus depreciation on same is not allowable. The learned DRP rejected the objections filed by the assessee against the aforesaid disallowance. Being

DCIT, Chennai vs. Ab Mauri India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 3317/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / It(Tp)A No’S.84 To 86/Chny/2018 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 11- 12 & 12-13 वष" M/S.Ab Mauri India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Plot No.218 & 219, Vs Of Income-Tax, Corporate Bommasandra Jigani Link Circle-1(1), Road, Bengaluru – 560 015. Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aaeca 9923 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No’S.3315 To 3317/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 11- 12 & 12-13 वष" The Deputy Commissioner M/S.Ab Mauri India Pvt. Of Income-Tax, Corporate Vs Ltd., Circle-1(1), Plot No.218 & 219, Chennai – 600 034. Bommasandra Jigani Link Road, Bengaluru – 560 015. Pan: Aaeca 9923 H Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee

Section 92CSection 92C(3)

anybody upon consideration. Therefore, the AO held that non-compete fee cannot be construed as part of any other commercial rights mentioned under section 32(1)(ii). The AO further held that since there is no right, there is no question of depreciation. 4.3 The Transfer Pricing Officer(TPO) made

DCIT, Chennai vs. Ab Mauri India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 3316/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / It(Tp)A No’S.84 To 86/Chny/2018 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 11- 12 & 12-13 वष" M/S.Ab Mauri India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Plot No.218 & 219, Vs Of Income-Tax, Corporate Bommasandra Jigani Link Circle-1(1), Road, Bengaluru – 560 015. Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aaeca 9923 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No’S.3315 To 3317/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 11- 12 & 12-13 वष" The Deputy Commissioner M/S.Ab Mauri India Pvt. Of Income-Tax, Corporate Vs Ltd., Circle-1(1), Plot No.218 & 219, Chennai – 600 034. Bommasandra Jigani Link Road, Bengaluru – 560 015. Pan: Aaeca 9923 H Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee

Section 92CSection 92C(3)

anybody upon consideration. Therefore, the AO held that non-compete fee cannot be construed as part of any other commercial rights mentioned under section 32(1)(ii). The AO further held that since there is no right, there is no question of depreciation. 4.3 The Transfer Pricing Officer(TPO) made

DCIT, Chennai vs. Ab Mauri India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 3315/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / It(Tp)A No’S.84 To 86/Chny/2018 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 11- 12 & 12-13 वष" M/S.Ab Mauri India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Plot No.218 & 219, Vs Of Income-Tax, Corporate Bommasandra Jigani Link Circle-1(1), Road, Bengaluru – 560 015. Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aaeca 9923 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No’S.3315 To 3317/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 11- 12 & 12-13 वष" The Deputy Commissioner M/S.Ab Mauri India Pvt. Of Income-Tax, Corporate Vs Ltd., Circle-1(1), Plot No.218 & 219, Chennai – 600 034. Bommasandra Jigani Link Road, Bengaluru – 560 015. Pan: Aaeca 9923 H Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee

Section 92CSection 92C(3)

anybody upon consideration. Therefore, the AO held that non-compete fee cannot be construed as part of any other commercial rights mentioned under section 32(1)(ii). The AO further held that since there is no right, there is no question of depreciation. 4.3 The Transfer Pricing Officer(TPO) made

Mahavir Ghar Sansar Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 1(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 141/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 141/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Ito-1(1)(1), Mahavir Ghar Sansar Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Private Limited, बिधम/ Road, Mumbai-400 020 19 Raj Mahal, 84, Veer Vs. Nariman Road, Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaacs7170C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Mahita Nair, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 22.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 18.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 01.12.2021, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 263 For Ay 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mahita Nair, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 32(1)(ii)

Appeals) 2, Mumbai. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) 2, Mumbai vide order dated 18/03/2015 has held that the assessee is entitled to depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) on the goodwill capitalized by the company. The AO while passing the order under section 143(3) of the Income ... know how involved) in the process and business of M/s Almet Healthcare Pvt. Ltd and depreciation has been claimed @ 25% in accordance with section 32(1)(ii) read with Explanation 3 to the said section. The references were also made to relevant Clause 1 of the agreement, which has been

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Pentasoft Technologies Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1248/CHNY/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1158/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2001-02 M/S.Pentasoft Technologies Ltd., V. The Ito (Osd)/The Acit, No.1, First Main Road, Company Circle-V(2), United India Colony, Chennai. Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024. [Pan: Aaacp 1895 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.I. Dinesh, AdvFor Respondent: Dr.S.Palanikumar, CIT

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी महावीर िसंह, माननीय उपा

Pentasoft Technologies Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO (OSD), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1158/CHNY/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1158/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2001-02 M/S.Pentasoft Technologies Ltd., V. The Ito (Osd)/The Acit, No.1, First Main Road, Company Circle-V(2), United India Colony, Chennai. Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024. [Pan: Aaacp 1895 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.I. Dinesh, AdvFor Respondent: Dr.S.Palanikumar, CIT

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी महावीर िसंह, माननीय उपा

M/S Karnataka Emta Coal Mines Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2139/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V.P. Pavan Kumar &
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35ESection 37

within the mining area 6.34 This “right to mine” and the “surface right” falls within the definition of intangible assets as defined in Section 32(1)(ii) and Explanation 3 to Section 32(1(ii). She submitted that the term “Business and Commercial Rights” has been dealt ... simple reason that the denial of claim of depreciation has been made on misinterpretation of law and the applicability thereof. Explanation to Section 32(1)(ii) leans in favour of the assessee to the extent that it is the actual action of put to use which entitles the assessee

M/S Karnataka Emta Coal Mines Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2138/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V.P. Pavan Kumar &
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35ESection 37

within the mining area 6.34 This “right to mine” and the “surface right” falls within the definition of intangible assets as defined in Section 32(1)(ii) and Explanation 3 to Section 32(1(ii). She submitted that the term “Business and Commercial Rights” has been dealt ... simple reason that the denial of claim of depreciation has been made on misinterpretation of law and the applicability thereof. Explanation to Section 32(1)(ii) leans in favour of the assessee to the extent that it is the actual action of put to use which entitles the assessee

M/S Karnataka Emta Coal Mines Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2137/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V.P. Pavan Kumar &
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35ESection 37

within the mining area 6.34 This “right to mine” and the “surface right” falls within the definition of intangible assets as defined in Section 32(1)(ii) and Explanation 3 to Section 32(1(ii). She submitted that the term “Business and Commercial Rights” has been dealt ... simple reason that the denial of claim of depreciation has been made on misinterpretation of law and the applicability thereof. Explanation to Section 32(1)(ii) leans in favour of the assessee to the extent that it is the actual action of put to use which entitles the assessee

M/S Karnataka Emta Coal Mines Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2136/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V.P. Pavan Kumar &
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35ESection 37

within the mining area 6.34 This “right to mine” and the “surface right” falls within the definition of intangible assets as defined in Section 32(1)(ii) and Explanation 3 to Section 32(1(ii). She submitted that the term “Business and Commercial Rights” has been dealt ... simple reason that the denial of claim of depreciation has been made on misinterpretation of law and the applicability thereof. Explanation to Section 32(1)(ii) leans in favour of the assessee to the extent that it is the actual action of put to use which entitles the assessee

M/S Karnataka Emta Coal Mines Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2135/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V.P. Pavan Kumar &
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35ESection 37

within the mining area 6.34 This “right to mine” and the “surface right” falls within the definition of intangible assets as defined in Section 32(1)(ii) and Explanation 3 to Section 32(1(ii). She submitted that the term “Business and Commercial Rights” has been dealt ... simple reason that the denial of claim of depreciation has been made on misinterpretation of law and the applicability thereof. Explanation to Section 32(1)(ii) leans in favour of the assessee to the extent that it is the actual action of put to use which entitles the assessee

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Pentasoft Technologies Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 449/CHNY/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Nov 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.121/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S.Pentasoft Technologies Ltd., V. The Income Tax – No.1, First Main Road, Officer (Osd), United India Colony, Company Circle-V(2), Kodambakkam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 024. [Pan: Aaacp 1895 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mrs.Sree Lakshmi Valli, AdvFor Respondent: Dr.S.Palanikumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 143(3)

Hence, such trade mark licence and the commercial rights acquired by payment of non-compete fee are intangible assets entitled to depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 15. The Revenue preferred appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. In fact, the assessee also preferred appeal as against ... Bombay Stock Exchange enables it to trade on the floor, is a business or commercial right in the nature of a licence under Section 32 (1)(ii) of the Act. 24. The Department on the other hand, pointed out that membership is a personal privilege and that

Pentasoft Technologies Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO (OSD), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 121/CHNY/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Nov 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.121/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S.Pentasoft Technologies Ltd., V. The Income Tax – No.1, First Main Road, Officer (Osd), United India Colony, Company Circle-V(2), Kodambakkam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 024. [Pan: Aaacp 1895 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mrs.Sree Lakshmi Valli, AdvFor Respondent: Dr.S.Palanikumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 143(3)

Hence, such trade mark licence and the commercial rights acquired by payment of non-compete fee are intangible assets entitled to depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 15. The Revenue preferred appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. In fact, the assessee also preferred appeal as against ... Bombay Stock Exchange enables it to trade on the floor, is a business or commercial right in the nature of a licence under Section 32 (1)(ii) of the Act. 24. The Department on the other hand, pointed out that membership is a personal privilege and that

DCIT, Chennai vs. Srinivasa Fashions Pvt Ltd., Chennai

ITA 2004/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri T. Banusekar, CA
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 32(1)(ii)Section 47Section 47xSection 72A(6)

this, Revenue has raised following grounds:- 2. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance, as the conditions of the proviso to section 32(1)(ii) of the Act were not satisfied in this case. 2.1 The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the depreciation in a case

Merck Specialities Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2056/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 4Section 5Section 92CSection 92C(1)

find that in the aforesaid decision the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with the issue of depreciation on BSE membership card under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, same is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Before concluding, it is relevant to note that

ACIT, Cir- 14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Wns Global Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2474/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 14ASection 32(1)

also acquired contractual rights which, no doubt, is a valuable commercial right. Therefore, it comes within the meaning of intangible asset as per section 32(1)(ii) r/w Explanation 3(b) of the Act. Hence, depreciation claimed by the assessee is allowable. The decisions relied upon by the learned

ACIT, Circle 14 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. Wns Global Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2473/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 14ASection 32(1)

also acquired contractual rights which, no doubt, is a valuable commercial right. Therefore, it comes within the meaning of intangible asset as per section 32(1)(ii) r/w Explanation 3(b) of the Act. Hence, depreciation claimed by the assessee is allowable. The decisions relied upon by the learned

M/S. India Medtronics Pvt.Ltd., Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1(2), Baroda

In the result, similarly the Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 480/AHD/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Rajan R. Vora with Sh. Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamath/ Akhtar Hussain Ansari
Section 234BSection 271Section 274Section 92C

However, both, the Assessing Officer as well as DRP disallowed assessee’s claim by holding that goodwill is not an intangible asset under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 44. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted, while deciding identical issue in assessee’s own case for assessment years ... considered rival submissions and perused material on record. The issue relating to depreciation on goodwill by treating it as an intangible asset under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act is no more res integra in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v/s Smifs