Tenancy rights not intangible assets for depreciation under Income Tax Act

The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that tenancy rights did not qualify as intangible assets for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the addition of disallowed depreciation to the assessee's income. The ITAT found that the payment made by the assessee was not specifically for acquiring tenancy rights but to settle a dispute, lacking evidence to support the claim. The decision was based on a thorough analysis of relevant provisions and case law, concluding that the lower authorities' interpretation was correct.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether tenancy rights qualify as intangible assets for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the order of the ld. CIT(A) dismissing the assessee's appeal for the assessment year 2010-11. The Assessing Officer disallowed depreciation claimed by the assessee on tenancy rights valued at &8377; 21,65,625, leading to an addition of &8377; 5,41,406 to the income. The Assessing Officer relied on the ITAT Mumbai Bench's decision that tenancy rights do not qualify as intangible assets for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii). The CIT(A) upheld this decision. The assessee raised grounds of appeal challenging these findings.

The assessee argued that the ITAT Mumbai Bench's decision was wrongly relied upon and cited the Supreme Court judgment in CIT Kolkata vs Smifs Securities Ltd., stating that tenancy rights are akin to goodwill. The assessee also referred to an ITAT Delhi Bench ruling in ThyssenKrupp Elevator (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT, where excess consideration paid was considered goodwill eligible for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii).

The Departmental Representative supported the lower authorities' decision, arguing that the assessee's case was different from the judgments cited. The ITAT analyzed section 32 of the Act, defining intangible assets eligible for depreciation. The question was whether tenancy rights fell within this definition. The payment made by the assessee was towards settling a dispute with the legal heirs of a deceased partner, not for acquiring tenancy rights. Lack of evidence supporting the claim that the payment was for tenancy rights led to the dismissal of the appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision.

Ultimately, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the assessee's appeal. The judgment was pronounced on 4th October 2017.

---