<?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>2014 (1) TMI 443 - ITAT PUNE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242222</link>
    <description>ITAT Pune held that the assessee&#039;s right to collect toll, arising from expenditure incurred on development, construction, and maintenance of a road infrastructure facility under an agreement with the State Government, constitutes an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under s.32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal rejected Revenue&#039;s contention that the right was not &quot;acquired&quot; for consideration, observing that the right existed only because the assessee invested its own funds in the project. As the asset was owned and used for business, depreciation was allowable; appeal was decided against Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Nov 2025 10:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=342233" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (1) TMI 443 - ITAT PUNE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242222</link>
      <description>ITAT Pune held that the assessee&#039;s right to collect toll, arising from expenditure incurred on development, construction, and maintenance of a road infrastructure facility under an agreement with the State Government, constitutes an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under s.32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal rejected Revenue&#039;s contention that the right was not &quot;acquired&quot; for consideration, observing that the right existed only because the assessee invested its own funds in the project. As the asset was owned and used for business, depreciation was allowable; appeal was decided against Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242222</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>