- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
ITAT rules on licence fees under the Income Tax Act
ITAT rules on licence fees under the Income Tax Act The fee paid for the long-term right to use the telecommunication spectrum amounts to capital expenditure The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled that the license fee paid for the long-term right to use the telecommunication spectrum amounts to capital expenditure under the Income Tax (IT) Act, 1961....
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
ITAT rules on licence fees under the Income Tax Act
The fee paid for the long-term right to use the telecommunication spectrum amounts to capital expenditure
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled that the license fee paid for the long-term right to use the telecommunication spectrum amounts to capital expenditure under the Income Tax (IT) Act, 1961.
The assessing officer (AO), while considering the return filed by the assessee-company, held that by paying the license fee, the assessee had the right to use the telecommunication spectrum. And the license acquired should be treated as an intangible asset. Therefore, he was entitled to claim the depreciation on it. However, he had claimed it as revenue expenditure.
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) directed that the annual payment made to authority (the government) for business operations of the assessee (a businessman) was revenue in nature. It was allowed under the IT Act.
Confirming the order of the first appellate authority, the tribunal bench comprising ITAT president G S Pannu and judicial member Kul Bharat said, "The IT Commissioner ruled on the fact that the revenue share fee was for the operation and usage of the right given under the license. It had not resulted in the creation of the capital asset or any other advantage."
"This finding was not rebutted by the revenue department. Moreover, the department did not bring to our notice any other binding precedent on this point," the bench added.