TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 980X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the AO since the Assessment Orders are much prior to the date of the valuation report but there is no finding of the learned CIT(A) on this aspect as to whether any valuation report was made available before him or not. In the facts of the present case, this valuation report appears to be a new evidence which appears in the Paper Book without complying with the Tribunal Rules in respect of filing of Paper Book and hence, we do not admit the valuation report - Decided against assessee. - ITA Nos.1191 and 1192/Bang/2018 (Assessment years : 2013-14 and 2014-15) - - - Dated:- 7-2-2020 - SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee by: Shri K. P. Srinivas, CA Revenue by: Shri. K. N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Year 2012-13 is available on pages 121 to 123 of the Paper Book and as per the same, there is no disallowance of depreciation in that year. He also submitted that in Assessment Year 2013-14 in para 2 of the assessment order, it is noted by the AO that the trade mark in question is purchased by the assessee at ₹ 1.40 Crores in Assessment Year 2012-13. He submitted that since, there is no disallowance of depreciation in the year of purchase of trade mark i.e. Assessment Year 2012- 13, no disallowance of such depreciation can be made in the succeeding years in Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15 and therefore, such disallowance should be deleted in both these years. At this juncture also, it was pointed out by the Bench that in the Ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whether the valuation report was made available before CIT(A) or not and obviously it could not be made available before the AO since the Assessment Orders are much prior to the date of the valuation report but there is no finding of the learned CIT(A) on this aspect as to whether any valuation report was made available before him or not. For ready reference, we reproduce para 8 from the order of CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2013-14 which is as under: 8. The Appellant has stated that it is a related party transaction and that Trade mark has been valued internally based on estimated future earnings. Out of the 5 trade marks assigned @ ₹ 28,00,000/- each, it is noticed that only one of them is a Registered Trade Mark while Registratio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cussion about the valuation report in the said para. Learned CIT(A) has also given finding that in the Assessment Year 2012-13, there is no discussion on this issue at all. We have also seen this and before us, no evidence was brought on record to show that any query was made by the AO in this regard in A. Y. 2012 - 13. There was one more argument raised before CIT(A) that this transaction is revenue neutral because short term capital gain on sale of trade mark was offered to tax by Sami Labs Pvt. Ltd., the seller but this finding is also given by the CIT(A) in the above para that such short term capital gain was set off by that assessee against brought forward loss which was to expire within the couple of years and hence, this transaction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f purchase of the asset i.e., Assessment Year 2005-06 and therefore, it was held on page 8 of the Tribunal order that once an asset is part of the block of assets and depreciation is granted on that block, it cannot be denied in the subsequent year on the ground that one of the assets is not used by the assessee in some of the years. In the present case, the facts are totally different and therefore, this Tribunal order is not rendering any help to the assessee in the present case. 6. In view of the above discussion, we hold that no interference is called for in the order of the learned CIT(A). 7. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on the 07-02-2020. - - TaxTMI - TMIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
