https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340664 ITAT held that expenditure incurred by assessee on construction of a road under a BOT contract resulted in acquisition of an intangible asset under s.32(1)(ii) r/w Expl. 3(b), being a business or commercial right to operate the toll road and collect toll. Depreciation on the written down value was allowed at the prescribed rate as an intangible asset; the issue of amortisation as deferred revenue expenditure under CBDT Circular No. 9/2014 was held irrelevant since the expenditure had already been treated as capital and depreciation allowed in earlier years. ITAT further held that, as no exempt income was earned during the year, no disallowance could be made under s.14A. en-us Tue, 14 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 27 Nov 2025 10:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340664 ITAT held that expenditure incurred by assessee on construction of a road under a BOT contract resulted in acquisition of an intangible asset under s.32(1)(ii) r/w Expl. 3(b), being a business or commercial right to operate the toll road and collect toll. Depreciation on the written down value was allowed at the prescribed rate as an intangible asset; the issue of amortisation as deferred revenue expenditure under CBDT Circular No. 9/2014 was held irrelevant since the expenditure had already been treated as capital and depreciation allowed in earlier years. ITAT further held that, as no exempt income was earned during the year, no disallowance could be made under s.14A. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 14 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340664