TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (12) TMI 590
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he case are that the assessee company is in the business of developing, operating and maintaining the infrastructure facilities for the software and related sectors. It filed its return of income for the assessment year 2006-07 on 24-11-2006 declaring a loss of ₹ 10,23,09,300/-. Initially, the return was processed u/s 143(3) of the IT Act on 03-09-2007. Thereafter, the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) after issuing notice u/s 143(2) to the assessee on 04-10-2007. In response to the said notice u/s 143(2) of the IT Act, the Accounts Executive of the Company, appeared and produced the details and after considering the same and after verifying the books of accounts, the assessment was completed and the loss was to be carried forward a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om STPI for a period of 66 years and in consideration of such lease transaction 9.5% of the land is developed free of cost for use by STPI and the cost of development of the space allotted to STPI is capitalized as an intangible asset and depreciation claimed at the rate of 25%. The CIT held that the assessee has not established before the AO in the course of assessment proceedings, that the concerned lease hold rights on land was similar to any of the rights specifically mentioned u/s 32(1)(ii) of the IT Act namely knowhow, patents, copyrights, trade marks, licenses and franchises other than generally stating that it was in the nature of a business or commercial right. 3. He further held that the AO had not recorded any finding with the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ne whether the cost of development capitalized by the company as intangible asset is eligible for depreciation claim at the rate of 25 percent, it is imperative to evaluate whether the same would fall under one of the categories specified u/s 31(1)(ii) which has been reproduced as under; Knowhow, patents, copyrights, trade marks, licenses, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, being intangible assets acquired on or after the 1st day of April, 1998. The term 'Right' is not defined in the Act. On examination of judicial legal and dictionary meanings, it may be concluded that right means an interest' which is legally protected. In the present case, the leasehold right encompasses many rights to the h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble". Thus, according to the learned counsel for the assessee the AO had called for the details and after considering the detailed submissions of the assessee on the issue and after applying his mind only has allowed the depreciation. In such circumstances, he submitted that the assessment order cannot be considered as erroneous for the non-application of mind by the AO and it cannot be revised u/s 263 of the IT Act. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance upon the decision of the "A" Bench of the Tribunal at Bangalore in the case of M/s ICICI Venture Funds Management Co.Ltd., in ITA No.66(BNG)/2010 dated 17-09-2010, wherein after following various decisions of various High Courts under similar situation, it has been held that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itted a detailed reply and the AO has recorded in his assessment order that the details called for have been placed on record and the assessment is completed after considering the said details. In the light of these recitals in the assessment order, it cannot be presumed that there was no application of mind by the assessing authority on the said issue. From the order of the CIT, it is to be understood that he was of the opinion that the enquiries and verification made by the AO relating to the said issue are inadequate. In the initial paragraphs of his order he held that the land cannot be treated as an intangible asset and therefore, the depreciation is not allowable on the same. Except for stating so, he has not brought out any provision....