https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755274 The ITAT Ahmedabad set aside the CIT's revision order u/s 263 regarding valuation of internally generated intangible assets. The assessee valued intangible assets based on historical cost method using actual expenses incurred for developing designs, which was in accordance with AS-26. The CIT incorrectly interpreted AS-26's definition paragraph as prescribing fair market valuation method and found the AO's inquiry inadequate. The ITAT held that the CIT's understanding of AS-26 was flawed since the accounting standard prescribes historical cost basis for internally developed intangible assets. Additionally, even if valuation was reduced, the expenses would be allowable u/s 37(1), causing no revenue prejudice. The revision jurisdiction was wrongly assumed on incorrect premises. en-us Fri, 15 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Jul 2024 10:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755274 The ITAT Ahmedabad set aside the CIT's revision order u/s 263 regarding valuation of internally generated intangible assets. The assessee valued intangible assets based on historical cost method using actual expenses incurred for developing designs, which was in accordance with AS-26. The CIT incorrectly interpreted AS-26's definition paragraph as prescribing fair market valuation method and found the AO's inquiry inadequate. The ITAT held that the CIT's understanding of AS-26 was flawed since the accounting standard prescribes historical cost basis for internally developed intangible assets. Additionally, even if valuation was reduced, the expenses would be allowable u/s 37(1), causing no revenue prejudice. The revision jurisdiction was wrongly assumed on incorrect premises. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 15 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755274