2023 (1) TMI 1156 - AT - Income Tax

Intangible Asset Depreciation Upheld: Tribunal Rejects Revenue's Appeals

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -1, Nashik Versus Ashoka Dhankuni Kharagpur Tollway Ltd. And Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -1, Nashik Versus Ashoka Infrastructure Ltd.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals and upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)' decision to allow depreciation on the intangible asset ... Depreciation on intangible asset being “License to Collect Toll” - AO following the direction issued by the CBDT’s vide its circular 09/2014 dt. 23/04/2014 appears to have amortized the assessee’s corresponding cost of construction of development of infrastructure facility over the period of concessionaire agreement - CIT(A)’s reversing the findings of Ld. AO in disallowing the claim of depreciation u/s 32(1)(ii) on intangible assets being “License To Collect Toll”- HELD THAT:- No merit in the Revenue’s stand as the very same issue had arisen between these parties in earlier AYs, more particularly in Revenue’s appeal [2022 (8) TMI 561 - ITAT PUNE] Co-ordinate bench has adjudicated the matter against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee Revenue is fair enough in its pleadings and not pin-pointing any distinctive facts or law in all these assessment years so far as the assessee’s treatment of its right to collect toll as an intangible asset u/s 32(1)(ii) is concerned, consequently we see no reason to deviate from the aforesaid decision of the Co-ordinate bench. Appeals of the Revenue is dismissed. Issues involved: Claim of depreciation on intangible asset - 'License to Collect Toll'Analysis:1. Background: The judgment pertains to three appeals by the Revenue challenging orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for assessment years 2017-18 to 2018-19 regarding the claim of depreciation on the intangible asset 'License to Collect Toll.' 2. Consolidated Hearing: The appeals revolve around the same issue of claiming depreciation on the intangible asset. The Tribunal consolidated the hearing due to the identical nature of the issue in all three appeals.3. Appellant's Grounds: The appellant challenged the CIT(A)'s decision on various grounds, including the allowance of depreciation on the 'License to Collect Toll' and the classification of the asset as an intangible asset under section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.4. Dispute Resolution: The main contention of the Revenue was the reversal of the AO's decision disallowing depreciation on the intangible asset. The CIT(A) based the decision on judicial consistency and previous Tribunal rulings.5. Ex-Parte Proceedings: In the absence of the assessee, the Tribunal proceeded ex-parte, considering the department's arguments, case records, and relevant legal provisions to reach a decision.6. Judicial Precedents: The Tribunal referred to previous decisions where similar issues were adjudicated against the Revenue and in favor of the assessee, emphasizing the commercial nature of the right to collect toll as an intangible asset eligible for depreciation.7. Decision: The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal, citing consistency with previous rulings and lack of distinctive facts or legal arguments to deviate from the CIT(A)'s decision. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.8. Outcome: The Tribunal dismissed the bunch of appeals by the Revenue, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision to allow depreciation on the intangible asset 'License to Collect Toll.'This detailed analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the judgment, focusing on the issues involved, the arguments presented, and the Tribunal's decision based on legal precedents and interpretations of relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961.