TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 1088X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HAI. This right definitely falls within the meaning of commercial right or intangible asset . This definitely would qualify for depreciation @ 25%. To the same effect is the decisions of the Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of GVK Jaipur Expressway Ltd.[ 2017 (10) TMI 1380 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] the High Court has taken into consideration all the decisions and more particularly the decisions of (i) Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Moradabad Toll Road Co. Ltd.[ 2014 (11) TMI 354 - DELHI HIGH COURT] (ii) Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd.[ 2012 (11) TMI 556 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] ; (iii) Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. VGP Housing (P.) Ltd.[ 2014 (8) TMI 423 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acts and issues are involved in both the appeals, we proceed to dispose of the same by this common order. 3. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the facts relevant to the appeal in ITA No.1389/PUN/2018 are stated herein. 4. The Revenue raised the following grounds of appeal :- 1.1 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Nashik was justified in allowing the depreciation of Rs. 1,03,89,78,720/- claimed on the asset Right to Collect Toll , when it is evident that the asset on which depreciation has been claimed, does not form part of intangible asset defined u/s 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 1.2 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (NHAI), a contract of constructing, developing and maintaining Durg to Chhattisgarh/Maharashtra Border section road facility on NH-6, in the State of Chhattisgarh, on Build, Operate Transfer (BOT) basis. The respondentassessee had incurred a total cost of Rs.512 crores on the above project. The cost of the project was capitalized in the books of accounts under the head Licence to Collect Toll treated as intangible asset and claimed depreciation @ 25% and the said claim was disallowed by the Assessing Officer by holding that the respondent-assessee is not the owner of any asset. 6. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the claim of the respondent-assessee was allowed following the decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench of Pune Tribunal in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt in the case of Tamil Nadu Road Development Co. Ltd. (130 taxmann.com 63). 10. We heard the ld. Sr. DR and perused the written submission filed by the respondent-assessee as well as the 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 hereinbelow for ready reference :- Depreciation. 32. (1) In respect of depreciation of- (i) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 01] 118 Taxman 712]; (vi) decisions of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of North Karnataka Expressway Ltd. vs. CIT, 372 ITR 145; (vii) CIT vs. West Gujarat Expressway Ltd. (No.1), 390 ITR 398 and (viii) CIT vs. West Gujarat Expressway Ltd. (No.2), 390 ITR 400 have no application to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as, the decision in the said two cases relates to the allowability of depreciation on roads treating as building. In the circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the order of the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue. Hence, the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No.1389/PUN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
