← 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)

Mahua Bharatpur Expressways Limited (Formerly Known As Madhucon Agra- Jaipur Expressways Limited), Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, Revenue appeals for the A

ITA 308/HYD/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.285 & 286/Hyd/2018 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri B Balakrishna, CIT (DR)
Section 43Section 43(1)

ITA Nos 285 286 of 2018 and ITA No.308 of 2021 Madhucon Agra Jaipur Expressways Ltd आयकर अपील"य अ

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. Madhucon Agra Jaipur Expressways Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, Revenue appeals for the A

ITA 286/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.285 & 286/Hyd/2018 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri B Balakrishna, CIT (DR)
Section 43Section 43(1)

ITA Nos 285 286 of 2018 and ITA No.308 of 2021 Madhucon Agra Jaipur Expressways Ltd आयकर अपील"य अ

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. Madhucon Agra Jaipur Expressways Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, Revenue appeals for the A

ITA 285/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.285 & 286/Hyd/2018 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri B Balakrishna, CIT (DR)
Section 43Section 43(1)

ITA Nos 285 286 of 2018 and ITA No.308 of 2021 Madhucon Agra Jaipur Expressways Ltd आयकर अपील"य अ

Olympic Decor LLP, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr.CIT, Ahmedabad-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 423/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Olympic Décor Llp Pr.Commissioner Of 6, Patel Avenue, Nr.Gurudwara Vs Income Tax-3 Sg Highway, Bodakdev Ambawadi Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan : Adafs 2113 H (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate & Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ars : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 28Section 32(1)(ii)Section 32(2)Section 68Section 80I

detailed revisionary order dated 22.02.2024, the PCIT recorded that the AO had failed to examine the claim of depreciation on goodwill under section 32(1)(ii), though it had been disallowed in earlier years (A.Y. 2016–17) and was claimed again in the year under consideration despite the matter being ... wherein the claim of depreciation on goodwill was upheld after thorough analysis of the amalgamation scheme, valuation report, and relevant provisions of section 32(1)(ii). It was therefore submitted that once the depreciation on goodwill was allowed in earlier years and has attained finality by way of a binding

Torrent Energy Limited (Now Merged With Torrent Power Limited), Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT Circle 4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 160/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2011-12 Torrent Energy Limited The Acit, Cir.4(1)(1) (Now Merged With Torrent Power Ltd) Ahmedabad. Samanvay, 600, Tapovan Ambawadi, Ahmedabad Pan : Aacct 8570 B (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ar : Smt.Trupti Patel, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/05/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, AR
Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 251Section 254Section 32(1)(ii)Section 37(1)

section 143(3), the assessee filed a written submission dated 07.11.2011 before the then Assessing Officer claiming depreciation on the leasehold rights under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, treating the rights as “intangible assets.” Subsequently, to avoid protracted litigation, the assessee chose not to press the claim

The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 281/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 35Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 92C

books of the amalgamating company and was artificially created in the books of the amalgamated company, and hence, no depreciation was allowable under section 32(1)(ii). The Revenue further argues that the actual cost of such goodwill should be treated as nil in view of Explanation 7 to section ... amalgamation duly sanctioned by the Hon’ble NCLT. The Co-ordinate Bench, after considering the provisions of ITA No.281 and 222/Ahd/2021 34 section 32(1)(ii) read with Explanation 3(b) and relying on the binding precedent of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Smifs Securities

Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 222/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 35Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 92C

books of the amalgamating company and was artificially created in the books of the amalgamated company, and hence, no depreciation was allowable under section 32(1)(ii). The Revenue further argues that the actual cost of such goodwill should be treated as nil in view of Explanation 7 to section ... amalgamation duly sanctioned by the Hon’ble NCLT. The Co-ordinate Bench, after considering the provisions of ITA No.281 and 222/Ahd/2021 34 section 32(1)(ii) read with Explanation 3(b) and relying on the binding precedent of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Smifs Securities

Adp India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), Chennai

ITA 2698/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं/.Ita Nos.: 2670, 2671, 2672 & 2698/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Adp India Private Limited, Thamarai Tech Park, 6Th Floor, Sp Plot No. 16 To 20 & 20A, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Inner Ring Road, Guindy Industrial Estate So, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. [Pan: Aadcm-5547-J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate Shri V. Justin, Cit & Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit 08.05.2025 21.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per George George K: These Four Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Four Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (All Dated 21.08.2024) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called 'The Act'). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21. -2-

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)

further submitted that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the goodwill is an intangible asset within the meaning of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and this fact has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smifs Securities ... goodwill is an intangible asset in nature of any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, which is eligible for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. The Id. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued that the CIT(A) erroneously upheld the addition in view

Adp India Private Limited, Chennai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 2672/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita Nos.: 2670, 2671, 2672 & 2698/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Adp India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Thamarai Tech Park, 6Th Floor, Vs. Income Tax, Sp Plot No. 16 To 20 & 20A, Thiru Vi Ka Corporate Circle 1(1), Industrial Estate, Inner Ring Road, Chennai. Guindy Industrial Estate So, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. [Pan: Aadcm-5547-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Justin, Cit & Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.05.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per George George K: These Four Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Four Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (All Dated 21.08.2024) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21. Ita Nos.2670 To 2672 & 2698/Chny/2024

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bagmar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, CIT &
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)

further submitted that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the goodwill is an intangible asset within the meaning of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and this fact has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smifs Securities ... goodwill is an intangible asset in nature of any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, which is eligible for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. The ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued that the CIT(A) erroneously upheld the addition in view

Adp India Private Limited, Chennai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre

ITA 2671/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपीलसं/Ita Nos.: 2670, 2671, 2672 & 2698/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Adp India Private Limited, Thamarai Tech Park, 6Th Floor, Sp Plot No. 16 To 20 & 20A, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Inner Ring Road, Guindy Industrial Estate So, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. [Pan: Aadcm-5547-J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate Shri V. Justin, Cit & Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit 08.05.2025 21.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per George George K: These Four Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Four Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (All Dated 21.08.2024) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called 'The Act'). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21. -2-

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)

further submitted that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the goodwill is an intangible asset within the meaning of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and this fact has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smifs Securities ... goodwill is an intangible asset in nature of any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, which is eligible for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. The Id. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued that the CIT(A) erroneously upheld the addition in view

Adp India Private Limited, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 2670/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita Nos.: 2670, 2671, 2672 & 2698/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Adp India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Thamarai Tech Park, 6Th Floor, Vs. Income Tax, Sp Plot No. 16 To 20 & 20A, Thiru Vi Ka Corporate Circle 1(1), Industrial Estate, Inner Ring Road, Chennai. Guindy Industrial Estate So, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. [Pan: Aadcm-5547-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Justin, Cit & Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.05.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per George George K: These Four Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Four Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (All Dated 21.08.2024) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21. Ita Nos.2670 To 2672 & 2698/Chny/2024

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bagmar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, CIT &
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)

further submitted that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the goodwill is an intangible asset within the meaning of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and this fact has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smifs Securities ... goodwill is an intangible asset in nature of any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, which is eligible for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. The ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued that the CIT(A) erroneously upheld the addition in view

ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad vs. Eenadu Television Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 648/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri V. Siva Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Rs.37,79,15,242/- and on which the appellant company has claimed depreciation @ 25% applicable to an “Intangible Asset” as defined under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and debited an amount of Rs.9,44,78,811/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed depreciation on non-compete fee on the ground ... that the appellant company has failed to prove how the said claim is in accordance with section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and eligible for claiming depreciation @ 25% applicable to an intangible asset. The Assessing Officer had discussed the issue at length in light of definition of non-compete

Eenadu Television Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

ITA 563/HYD/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 May 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri V. Siva Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Rs.37,79,15,242/- and on which the appellant company has claimed depreciation @ 25% applicable to an “Intangible Asset” as defined under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and debited an amount of Rs.9,44,78,811/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed depreciation on non-compete fee on the ground ... that the appellant company has failed to prove how the said claim is in accordance with section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and eligible for claiming depreciation @ 25% applicable to an intangible asset. The Assessing Officer had discussed the issue at length in light of definition of non-compete

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad vs. Eenadu Television Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 665/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri V. Siva Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Rs.37,79,15,242/- and on which the appellant company has claimed depreciation @ 25% applicable to an “Intangible Asset” as defined under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and debited an amount of Rs.9,44,78,811/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed depreciation on non-compete fee on the ground ... that the appellant company has failed to prove how the said claim is in accordance with section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and eligible for claiming depreciation @ 25% applicable to an intangible asset. The Assessing Officer had discussed the issue at length in light of definition of non-compete

ACIT, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad vs. Eenadu Television Private Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 654/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri V. Siva Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Rs.37,79,15,242/- and on which the appellant company has claimed depreciation @ 25% applicable to an "Intangible Asset" as defined under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and debited an amount of Rs.9,44,78,811/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed depreciation on non-compete fee on the ground ... that the appellant company has failed to prove how the said claim is in accordance with section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and eligible for claiming depreciation @ 25% applicable to an intangible asset. The Assessing Officer had discussed the issue at length in light of definition of non-compete

M/S Inditrade Capital Ltd (Previously Known As "Jrg Securities Ltd"), Kochi vs. The ITO, Corporate Ward1(1), Kochi

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

ITA 243/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Sri.Aneesh Vishwanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

Sharp Business System (supra), has held that, expenditure incurred for acquiring non-compete right is capital in nature and entitled to depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 1.3 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred both in law and in facts ... M/s.Inditrade Capital Limited. had acquired a commercial right, which would fall within the ambit of “intangible asset” in terms of the provisions of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the appellant made a claim for allowance of depreciation at the rate of 25% of the sum paid, placing

M/S Inditrade Capital Ltd (Previously Known As, Kochi vs. The ITO, Corporate Ward1(1), Kochi

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

ITA 242/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Sri.Aneesh Vishwanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

Sharp Business System (supra), has held that, expenditure incurred for acquiring non-compete right is capital in nature and entitled to depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 1.3 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred both in law and in facts ... M/s.Inditrade Capital Limited. had acquired a commercial right, which would fall within the ambit of “intangible asset” in terms of the provisions of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the appellant made a claim for allowance of depreciation at the rate of 25% of the sum paid, placing

M/S Inditrade Capital Ltd (Previously Known As, Kochi vs. The ITO, Corporate Ward1(1), Kochi

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

ITA 241/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Sri.Aneesh Vishwanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

Sharp Business System (supra), has held that, expenditure incurred for acquiring non-compete right is capital in nature and entitled to depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 1.3 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred both in law and in facts ... M/s.Inditrade Capital Limited. had acquired a commercial right, which would fall within the ambit of “intangible asset” in terms of the provisions of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the appellant made a claim for allowance of depreciation at the rate of 25% of the sum paid, placing

M/S Inditrade Capital Ltd (Previously Known As, Kochi vs. The ITO, Corporate Ward1(1), Kochi

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

ITA 240/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Sri.Aneesh Vishwanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

Sharp Business System (supra), has held that, expenditure incurred for acquiring non-compete right is capital in nature and entitled to depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 1.3 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred both in law and in facts ... M/s.Inditrade Capital Limited. had acquired a commercial right, which would fall within the ambit of “intangible asset” in terms of the provisions of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the appellant made a claim for allowance of depreciation at the rate of 25% of the sum paid, placing

M/S Inditrade Capital Ltd (Previously Known As, Kochi vs. The ITO, Corporate Ward1(1), Kochi

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

ITA 239/COCH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Sri.Aneesh Vishwanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

Sharp Business System (supra), has held that, expenditure incurred for acquiring non-compete right is capital in nature and entitled to depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 1.3 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred both in law and in facts ... M/s.Inditrade Capital Limited. had acquired a commercial right, which would fall within the ambit of “intangible asset” in terms of the provisions of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the appellant made a claim for allowance of depreciation at the rate of 25% of the sum paid, placing