Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
701 to 720 of 95833 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 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
