Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

Home › All Judgements › Tirumala Music Centre (P) Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Hyderabad)

Tirumala Music Centre (P) Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Hyderabad)

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 17, 2013 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Click here to download the judgement (tirumala_leasehold_depreciation.pdf)


S. 32(1)(ii): Any right (including leasehold rights) which enables carrying on business effectively and profitably is an “intangible asset” & eligible for depreciation

The assessee paid a sum of Rs. 60 lakhs to acquire leasehold rights to premises. The assessee claimed that the said leasehold rights were an “intangible asset” and eligible for depreciation u/s 32(1)(ii). The AO & CIT(A) rejected the claim of the assessee. On appeal by the assessee to the Tribunal HELD allowing the appeal:

S. 32(1)(ii) allows depreciation on “business or commercial rights” The expression “business or commercial rights” means rights obtained for effectively carrying on business or commerce. Commerce is a wider term which encompasses business in its fold. Therefore, any right which is obtained for carrying on business effectively and profitably has to fall within the meaning of the term “intangible asset” (Kotak Forex Brokerage Ltd 33 SOT 237(Mum) & Smifs Securities Ltd 348 ITR 302 (SC) followed)

Click here for more judgements on what is an “intangible asset” for purposes of s. 32(1)(ii) depreciation

Related Posts:

  • Bharathi Cement Corporation Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Hyderabad) We also cannot presume or apply test of human probabilities, we are dealing with the business transaction, it has to be based on cogent material. Considering the whole situation, in our considered view, the AO/CIT(A) have restricted themselves by stopping the investigation based on circumstantial evidence and applying test of…
  • India Convention and Culture Centre Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi) As per the circle rate prescribed by the competent authority, the value of total assets i.e., the fair market value of the land which was converted from ‘agricultural’ into ‘institutional’ comes to Rs.113,00,72,749/-. If the other assets of Rs.9,17,608/- is added to such asset and the total liability of 46,55,69,537/-…
  • UOI vs. U.A.E. Exchange Centre (Supreme Court) The meaning of expressions “business connection” and “business activity” has been articulated. However, even if the stated activity(ies) of the liaison office of the respondent in India is regarded as business activity, as noted earlier, the same being “of preparatory or auxiliary character”; by virtue of Article 5(3)(e) of the…
  • ITO vs. K. Ramakrishna Reddy (ITAT Hyderabad) A.O. was of the opinion that capital gains declared by the assessee was bogus. In this regard, A.O. also observed that he received information from the office of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai that M/s. Alliance Intermediaries and Network Pvt Ltd., one of the group companies of Mr. Mukesh…
  • R.A.K. Ceramics vs. DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad) The powers conferred upon the CIT(A) under section 249(3), for condoning the delay in filing of appeal if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period, are statutory power to alleviate genuine suffering of taxpayers, so far as their grievance redressal by…
  • Srinivas Sashidhar Chaganty vs. ITO (ITAT Hyderabad) Section 254(2) of the Act refers to the period of limitation reckoning from the end of the month in which the order Is passed' and not from the 'date of receipt of the order’. As rightly pointed out by the Ld DR, the expressions "passed" "initiated" and "served / received"…

Related Judgements

  1. DHL Express (India) Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) 

    Transfer Pricing: Low T/O companies are not comparable. Only operational profits to be considered for comparison The assessee, a courier company, made payments to its parent company towards net work fees, reimbursement of expenses, purchase of marketing material etc. In … DHL Express (India) Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT…
  2. KRA Holding & Trading Pvt Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Pune) 

    The PMS fee, on profit sharing basis, was for the twin purposes of acquisition and sale of the securities. The fact that bifurcation between the two is not possible is not relevant. The department’s argument that fee should be share-specific is absurd because fees for shares transactions is never…
  3. Glenmark Laboratory vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) 

    For purposes of s. 80HHC, the direct cost attributable to the earning of the DEPB license (equal to the value of the license on the date of receipt) has to be reduced from the direct cost of trading goods on … Glenmark Laboratory vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Read…
  4. Ambala Central Cooperative Bank Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Chandigarh) 

    We would like to take this opportunity to bring to the notice of CBDT that after the procedure of Central processing of returns, many issues have come before various forums where unnecessary demands have been raised due to non-grant of TDS, wrong computation of income, adjustment of the previous…
  5. Irfan Abdul Kader Fazlani vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) 

    S. 50C applies only to the transfer of a “capital asset, being land or building or both”, “assessed” by any authority of a State Government for stamp duty purposes. The expression “transfer” has to be a direct transfer as defined u/s 2(47) which does not include the tax planning…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*