Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.20 seconds)
Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Rohan And Rajdeep Infrastructure ... on 5 January, 2021 cites

M/S Hotel ... vs Asst.Commr.Of Commercial Taxes & Anr on 3 February, 2012

13. As discussed above, the ld. DR placed reliance on the order of Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in admitting the substantial question of law raised by the appellant-revenue. We note that the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay was pleased to admit the substantial question of law and there was no order modifying or staying the operation of order passed 8 ITA Nos.53 to 55/PUN/2018, A.Ys. 2006-07 to 2008-09 in the case of Ashoka Infrastructure Ltd. (supra) by the Hon‟ble High Court. The ld. DR could not place any order to that effect before us in support of his arguments that the assessee is not entitled to claim depreciation. Therefore, in our view in the facts and circumstances of the case and the discussion made here-in-above, we hold that the assessee is entitled to claim deprecation as per specified rate at 25% and the order of CIT(A) is justified. It is observed that the AO, while denying the claim of depreciation, allowed deduction towards amortization of expenses relatable to money spent for construction of infrastructure facilities, i.e. bus terminal. Once the claim of the assessee towards depreciation allowance is accepted, the deduction allowed by the AO towards allocated cost of project, naturally needs to be withdrawn. The AO is directed to recalculate the depreciation in terms indicated above and add back the allocated cost of project as allowed by him as deduction in the assessment order. Thus, the ground Nos. 1 to 3 raised by the Revenue fails and are dismissed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 19 - A R Dave - Full Document

Acit, Circle-16(2), Hyd, Hyderabad vs Progressive Constructions Limited., ... on 14 February, 2017

12. Likewise this Tribunal in another case in DCIT Vs. M/s. Mahakaleshwar Tollways Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 2641/PUN/2016 for A.Y. 2011-12 order dated 11-02-2019 by placing reliance on the decision of Special Bench of Hyderabad Tribunal in the case of Progressive Construction Ltd. (supra) held the assessee therein is eligible to claim depreciation on National Highway constructed on BOT basis.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 13 - Cited by 23 - Full Document

Wipro Ltd vs Asst. Collector Of Customs & Ors on 16 April, 2015

Ltd. Vs. Asst. CIT reported in (2010) 35 SOT 50 (URO) (Pune) observed that the assessee therein has acquired right to operate the toll/bridge and collect toll charges in lieu of investment made by it in implementing project is a business or commercial right as envisaged u/s. 32(1)(ii) of the Act r.w. Explanation 3(b) and held the assessee is eligible to claim depreciation. The relevant paragraphs of the order are as under :
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 55 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S. Smifs Securities Ltd. (Presently ... on 9 June, 2010

"16. We have already held earlier in the order that by incurring the expenditure of `Rs.214 crore assessee has acquired the right to operate the project and collect toll charges. Therefore, such right acquired by the assessee is a valuable business or commercial right because through such means, the assessee is going to recoup not only the cost incurred in executing the project but also with some amount of profit. Therefore, there cannot be any dispute that the right to operate the project facility and collect toll charges therefrom in lieu of the expenditure incurred in executing the project is an intangible asset created for the enduring benefit of the assessee. Now, it has to be seen whether such intangible asset comes within the expression "any other business or commercial rights of similar nature". As could be seen from the definition of intangible asset, specifically identified items like knowhow, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licenses, franchises are not of the same category, but, distinct from each other. However, one thing common amongst these assets is, they all are part of the tool of the trade and facilitate smooth carrying on of business. Therefore, any other intangible asset which may not be identifiable with the specified items, but, is of similar nature would come within the expression "any other business or commercial rights of similar nature". The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v/s Smifs Securities (supra) after interpreting the definition of intangible asset as provided in Explanation 3 to section 32(1), while opining that principle of ejusdem generis would strictly apply in interpreting the definition of intangible asset as provided by Explanation 3(b) of section 32, at the same time, held that even applying the said principle 'goodwill' would fall under the expression "any other business or commercial rights of similar nature". Thus, as could be seen, 6 ITA Nos.53 to 55/PUN/2018, A.Ys. 2006-07 to 2008-09 even though, 'goodwill' is not one of the specifically identifiable assets preceding the expressing "any other business or commercial rights of similar nature", however, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that 'goodwill' will come within the expression "any other business or commercial rights of similar nature". Therefore, the contention of the learned Senior Standing Counsel that to come within the expression "any other business or commercial rights of similar nature" the intangible asset should be akin to any one of the specifically identifiable assets is not a correct interpretation of the statutory provisions. Had it been the case, then 'goodwill' would not have been treated as an intangible asset.
Calcutta High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 261 - M S Shah - Full Document

M/S. Techno Shares & Stocks Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iv on 9 September, 2010

In the case of Techno Shares and Stocks Ltd. v/s CIT, [2010] 327 ITR 323 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while examining the assessee's claim of depreciation on BSE Membership Card, after interpreting the provisions of section 32(1)(ii), held that as the membership card allows a member to participate in a trading session on the floor of the exchange, such membership is a business or commercial right, hence, similar to license or franchise, therefore, an intangible asset. In the present case, undisputedly by virtue of C.A. the assessee has acquired the right to operate the toll road / bridge and collect toll charges in lieu of investment made by it in implementing the project. Therefore, the right to operate the toll road / bridge and collect toll charges is a business or commercial right as envisaged under section 32(1)(ii) r/w Explanation 3(b) of the said provisions. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the assessee is eligible to claim depreciation on WDV as an intangible asset. Thus, we answer the question framed by the Special Bench as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 130 - S H Kapadia - Full Document
1