“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

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)

M/S. Hemavathy Power & Light Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 1820/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESEIDENT AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT

M/S Hemavathy Power & Light Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1)(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 2719/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESEIDENT AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT

M/S Hemavathy Power & Light Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 2718/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESEIDENT AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT

M/S Hemavathy Power & Light Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-11(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 2717/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESEIDENT AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT

M/S. Te Connectivity Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 300/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.300/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Sheshadri & Ms. Amulya K., CAsFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)

ignored that intangibles comprise of various assets. 4. The Learned AO / DRP erred in invoking the sixth (originally fifth proviso) to section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and disallowing the claim of depreciation under section 36 of the Act (a) despite having admitted in page

Narmada Bridge Tollway Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT 15 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

ITA 442/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 442/मुं/2020 ("न. व. 2014-15 ) Narmada Bridge Tollway Ltd. Hincon House, Lbs Marg, Vikhroli West, Mumbai 400 083. Pan: Aaecn-0349-N ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Acit 15(2)(1), Room No.357, 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 . ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri H.P.Mahajani ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Tejinder Pal Singh सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 11/02/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 09/05/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, Mumbai [N Short ‘ The Cit(A) ] Dated 31/10/2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Shri H.P.Mahajani Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Narrating The Facts Of The Case Submitted That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Operation & Maintenance Of Six Laning Of Road Kms 192 To Km 198 Between

For Appellant: Shri H.P.MahajaniFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh

Section 32(1)(ii)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण मुंबई पीठ “बी ” "ी "वकास अव"थी, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एम. बालगणेश, लेखा सद

Sagar Damoh Toll Roads Limited, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 8(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3147/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesagar Damoh Toll Vs. Acit, Circle – 8(1)(2) Roads Ltd Room No. 651, 6Th 513A, 5Th Floor, Floor, Aayakar Kohinoor City, Kirol Bhavan, Mk Road, Road, Off Lbs Marg, Mumbai – 400020. Kurla, Mumbai – 400070 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacce2160Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. K. Shivaram.Ar Respondent By : Shri Ajay K. Shrivastava.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Mumbai Passed 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri. K. Shivaram.ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay K. Shrivastava.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 32(1)(ii)

accepting the contention of the Appellant that Concessionaire I Toll Collection Rights falls within the definition of Intangible Assets as per section 32(1)(ii) of the Income tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') entitled for depreciation © 25%. The disallowance of depreciation made by the learned CIT(A) in the order ... Ld.AR that the assessee is entitled for depreciation on toll collection rights as it is an intangible asset as per the section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. The assessee company is engaged in the business of design, engineering procure, construction, maintenance, management and operation of toll collection

Ashish Life Science P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT-Circle-9(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 964/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 964/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ashish Life Science Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Acit-Cir, 9(1)(2) 210, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar 213, Laxmi Plaza Industrial Vs. Estate, New Link Road, Bhavan, M. K. Road, Andheri, Mumbai-400053. Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcb4093N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dhaval Shah Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murty सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 15.04.2021 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The “(Nfac)”] In The Relevant A.Y.2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Passing The Order U/S. 250 Of The Act Through National Faceless Appeal Center Which Is Bad In Law & Invalid. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts Confirming The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Act Without. Considering The Written Submissions Filed By The Appellant. As Such, The Order Is

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval ShahFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R. Murty

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

when the expense were incurred for registration of Trademark in that country and also for registration of Patent, which are intangible assets under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act? ITA. No.964/Mum/2021 A.Y. 2017-18 These questions pertain to the expenditure incurred by the assessee towards product registration before

DCIT 6 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Kilitch Healthcare India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross objection is held to be infructuous

ITA 7061/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viia)Section 56(2)(viib)

find any infirmity in the order of learned CIT(A). Hence, we uphold the same. 21. Apropos issue of addition of depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) This issue relates to A.O.'s action in denying depreciation on goodwill u/s. 32(1)(ii) arising to the Appellant pursuant ... assessee submitted that in the assessee's case the liabilities were in excess of asset to the extent of Rs.9,98,05,871. Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act prescribes that in respect of knowhow, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licences franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar

M/S Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2 Ltpu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for 37

ITA 3373/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.3373/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Te Park, 22B, Doddenakundi Corporation, 2Nd Circle - 2, Large Taxpayer Unit, Phase, Industrial Area, Whitefield Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 7374 C Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sriram Seshadri, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 22.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.02.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 144C

claim of depreciation under section 32 of the Act is a mandatory allowance goodwill arising on merger satisfied the conditions specified under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, as certified in the tax audit report IT(TP)A No.3373/Bang/2018 Page 5 of 33 ISSUE GROUNDS OF APPEAL (“GoA”) issued ... grounds. In light of the above, Goodwill arising on amalgamation, in the hands of amalgamated company is an intangible asset in terms of Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and thus eligible for depreciation under the Act. The issue whether Goodwill arising on amalgamation is eligible for depreciation

Asstt. CIT, Circle-3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Reliance Corporatio It Park Ltd., Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1893/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita Nos. 1893 & 1894/Mum/2020 (A.Ys: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Acit, Circle -3(3)(1) Vs. M/S Reliance Room No. 609, 6Th Corporate It Park Ltd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Bldg. No. 45, Ttc Indl. Mk Road, Mumbai – Area, Thane-Belapur 400 020. Road, Rabale, Navi Mumbai – 400701. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcd7169H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mrs.Mamta Bansal. Cit Dr Respondent By : Mr. Nimesh Vora.C A .Ar Date Of Hearing 24.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 17.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Mumbai, Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act.

For Appellant: Mrs.Mamta Bansal. CIT DRFor Respondent: Mr. Nimesh Vora.C A .AR

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92

supra), we are of the considered view that the assessee is entitled for depreciation on the leased asset as per provisions section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. The Ld CIT(A) after considering relevant facts has rightly deleted additions made by the AO towards disallowance of depreciation, hence

Power Exchange India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-14(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 769/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Sunil Nahta.ARFor Respondent: Mr. S.G. Menon. Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(ii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

M/S. Altimetrik India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2511/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)(c)

Page 2 of 9 IT(TP)A No. 2511/Bang/2019 disallowing the depreciation on goodwill by placing reliance on the sixth proviso to section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). 2.2. The Hon'ble DRP has erred in law in holding that the Appellant's claim ... provisions contained in Explanation 7 to section 43(1), read with Explanation 2 to section 43(6)(c) read with sixth proviso to section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 2.3. The Hon'ble DRP and learned AO has erred in not appreciating the fact that the sixth proviso

ACIT Cir- 2(1) (1), Mumbai vs. Infrasoft Technologies Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 261/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KishnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain (Sr. AR)

Section 143(2)Section 32(1)

Tribunal has held that customer contracts fall within the term “or any other a business of commercial rights of similar nature” provided in Section 32(1)(ii) and held the some to be intangible asset eligible for depreciation, 7 A.Y.2016-17 6. 23 Further, here, for the purpose of allowing depreciation

Geodis Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4771/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora, Sr. DR

Section 234BSection 234DSection 250(6)Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

addition made by the AO in relation to disallowance of depreciation on goodwill amounting to INR 1,55,34,890 claimed under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in holding ... further erred in confirming that goodwill does not qualify as ‘business or commercial right’ as envisaged under section 32(1 )(ii) of the Act. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in levying interest under section 234B and section 234D

Frick India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our

ITA 330/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate and Shri Pulkit Verma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar Varma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 251(2)Section 263Section 94(7)

Frick India Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Circle 11(1), New Delhi 1 ITA Nos. 2072/Del/2008 & 330/Del/2012 – A.Ys 2004-05 & 2005-06

Frick India Ltd vs. DCIT Circle-11 (1)

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our

ITA 2072/DEL/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2021AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate and Shri Pulkit Verma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar Varma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 251(2)Section 263Section 94(7)

Frick India Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Circle 11(1), New Delhi 1 ITA Nos. 2072/Del/2008 & 330/Del/2012 – A.Ys 2004-05 & 2005-06

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Glf Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4556/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Dcit, Vs Glf Lifestyle Pvt.Ltd., Circle-10(1), Flat No.3A/1, Taj Apartment, C.R.Building, Rao Tula Ram Marg, New Delhi-110002. New Delhi-110002. Pan-Aaecg3087E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. Respondent By Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 09.12.2021

Section 143(3)Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(ii)

assets and intangible assets (described as goodwill) acquired as part of the running business. The AO, however, held that depreciation in terms of Section 32(1) (ii) of the Act was not, in law, available on goodwill. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following judgements: 1 ... assessee is not justified. It is pertinent to note that once the claim of depreciation is restricted under the 5th proviso to section 32(1)(ii) then the calculation issue become irrelevant. The CIT(Appeals) has also concurred with the view of the Assessing Officer

Pune Solapur Expressways P.Ltd, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle-20(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 3326/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CAFor Respondent: Shri Munesh Kumar, CIT, DR

Section 250(6)Section 253Section 32

fact that the right to collect toll does not fall under any of the categories of ‘intangible assets’ specified in section 32(1)(ii) of the IT Act. Referring to the clarification issued by the CBDT, vide Circular No.09/2014, the AO held that the expenditure incurred by the assessee ... asset' due to the fact that right to collect does not fall under any of the categories of the ‘intangible asset’ specified under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. c) As per the extant clarification issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) vide Circular No. 9/2014

Curadev Pharma Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 6(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7187/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Sh. S. Vasudevan, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 37(1)

capital in nature and results in creation of an intangible asset, being in the nature of capital asset as mentioned in Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, under the erroneous assumption that section 32(1) (ii) of the Act is applicable, the Ld. AO after allowing depreciation