Drawings/designs supply and erection supervision fees from German contractor: designs non-taxable; supervision taxed as FTS/PE depending on six-month ...
Imported analyser diagnostic cartridges treated as accessories with analyser system, not standalone diagnostic reagents; extended limitation and penal...
Steel-timber construction shuttering/formwork tariff classification dispute: essential character held steel, classified as shuttering under Heading 73...
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.