Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 2095 - AT - Income TaxDepreciation on intangible assets i.e. know-how, patents and trademark, goodwill and non-compete fee - HELD THAT:- As following the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smifs Securities Ltd.[2012 (8) TMI 713 - SUPREME COURT] held that the assessee is eligible for claiming depreciation on know-how, patents and trademarks. Since, this issue has already been dealt in detail by the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own appeal for assessment year 2004-05 [2018 (1) TMI 12 - ITAT PUNE] and 2005-06 [2018 (1) TMI 12 - ITAT PUNE] allowing the claim of assessee, we apply the same reasoning to allow grounds No. 2, 3 and 4 in the present appeal of the assessee as well. It is an undisputed fact that there is no change in the facts and circumstances in the assessment year 2006-07. The ld. DR has not brought before us any judgment wherein contrary view has been taken. Valuation of land at Taloja and Panki - scope of Business Transfer Agreement (BTA) - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case for assessment year 2004-05 [2018 (1) TMI 12 - ITAT PUNE] no merit in the stand of CIT(A) that the land at Taloja was transferred by ICI India Ltd. to the assessee under BTA and hence, the value of slump price is first to be attributed to the cost of said land - assessee fairly admitted that the value of ₹ 17.37 crores be attributed to Panki assets. However, revised allocation value of land at Panki would be ₹ 13 crores, out of total slump price of ₹ 153 crores. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to re-compute the value of both tangible and intangible assets, accordingly. Valuation of trademark, patent and know-how acquired by the assessee from ICI India Limited - HELD THAT:- Identical ground was raised in appeal by assessee in assessment year 2004-05 [2018 (1) TMI 12 - ITAT PUNE] Find no merit in the stand of learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue that actual cost for entire block could be examined in the succeeding year if there were circumstances necessitating such change. We find no merit on the same and the same is rejected. Since we have decided the issue both on merits and also on preliminary issue of whether the WDV of assets could be disturbed in the succeeding year, we hold that the issue of enhancement whether can be made by the CIT(A) or not becomes academic in nature and the same is not adjudicated. Accordingly, we direct Assessing Officer to allow claim of depreciation on tangible assets; know-how, trademark and patents; goodwill and non-compete fee.
|