TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 561X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly 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 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] ; (i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. The return of income for the assessment year 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 depreciation. The said claim was negated by the AO holding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 32. (1) In respect of depreciation of- (i) . (ii) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xman 712]. 9. The 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. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue in ITA No.157/PUN/2019 is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
