Condonation of refiling delay refused where repeated defects, lack of diligence and vague explanations defeated the appeal against resolution plan app...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
4401 to 4420 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
ITAT held that the assessee is entitled to depreciation on the intangible asset described as "Right to Collect Toll" under s.32. The Tribunal found that, under the DBFOT contract, the assessee has deemed ownership, acquisition and possession of the underlying project assets, which suffices to satisfy the ownership requirement for depreciation, even though the asset is intangible and cannot be "physically owned" in the manner envisaged by the AO. ITAT distinguished BOT projects relied upon by the Revenue, noting the wider scope of DBFOT and the deemed acquisition of the project by the assessee. The assessee's choice of depreciation instead of amortization was upheld. Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
ITAT held that the assessee is entitled to depreciation on the intangible asset described as "Right to Collect Toll" under s.32. The Tribunal found that, under the DBFOT contract, the assessee has deemed ownership, acquisition and possession of the underlying project assets, which suffices to satisfy the ownership requirement for depreciation, even though the asset is intangible and cannot be "physically owned" in the manner envisaged by the AO. ITAT distinguished BOT projects relied upon by the Revenue, noting the wider scope of DBFOT and the deemed acquisition of the project by the assessee. The assessee's choice of depreciation instead of amortization was upheld. Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
