<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2012 (5) TMI 162 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213209</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision, allowing the assessee&#039;s claim for depreciation on intangible assets acquired from AFL Pvt Ltd. The Tribunal determined that the transfer agreement specifically included intangible assets eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. The revenue&#039;s arguments regarding non-compete fees, enforcement rights, and the timing of the transfer agreement were dismissed, and the appeal by the revenue was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Apr 2016 18:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=186610" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (5) TMI 162 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213209</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision, allowing the assessee&#039;s claim for depreciation on intangible assets acquired from AFL Pvt Ltd. The Tribunal determined that the transfer agreement specifically included intangible assets eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. The revenue&#039;s arguments regarding non-compete fees, enforcement rights, and the timing of the transfer agreement were dismissed, and the appeal by the revenue was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213209</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>