2022 (8) TMI 561

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....018 for the assessment years 2015-16 & 2014-15, respectively. 2. Since the identical facts and issues are involved in all these appeals, we proceed to dispose of them vide this common order. 3. For the sake of clarity and convenience, the facts relevant for the appeal in ITA No.157/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2015-16 in the case of M/s. Ashoka Dhankuni Kharagpur Tollway Ltd. are stated herein. 4. Briefly, the facts of the case are as under: The respondent-assessee is a company incorporated under the provisions of The Companies Act, 1956. It is a special company formed for the purpose of undertaking an infrastructure project of construction and maintenance of roads under the Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) scheme of the Govt. of India. T....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....icense to collect toll, which is an intangible asset, as envisaged u/s 32(1)(ii). Accordingly, assessee had capitalized all the cost incurred on construction of the road facility, as the cost incurred to acquire the license to collect toll and has claimed depreciation @25% on the WDV of the capitalized value of the License, under the head of intangible assets. The notification issued by the Government, allowing assessee to collect toll, is in the name of assessee and therefore, it can be said that assessee is the owner of the intangible asset, which has been capitalized in the books of account as "License to collect Toll". Therefore, the condition of "Ownership", as envisaged in Sec. 32 is also fulfilled by assessee for claiming depreciatio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vs. Progressive Constructions Ltd. (92 taxmann.com 104) and (vi) decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Road Development Co. Ltd. (130 taxmann.com 63). 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused material on record. The only issue in the present appeal relates to whether or not the cost of "Right to Collect Toll" qualifies as "intangible asset" as defined under clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 32 of the Act. There is no dispute about the cost of acquisition. The only dispute is with regard to the true nature of the rights acquired in terms of the contract awarded by the NHAI. The relevant provisions of section 32(1)(ii) are extracted herein below for ready reference:- "Depreciation. 3....