TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1016X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned counsel has also not filed the relevant documents to prove his points that no expenses has been incurred to earn the exempt income. Even a copy of the balance sheet has not been filed by him before the Tribunal to establish his argument. We also find that the learned CIT(A) has noted that the assessee had not given any details to work out the direct nexus of the interest expenditure related to the exempt income which was not included in the taxable income. Further it is found that during the A.Y. 2007-08, the AO had made addition on similar ground which was deleted by the learned CIT(A) and the ITAT in favour of the assessee. However, Rule 8D was notified by the IT (Fifth Amdt.) Rules, 2008 w.e.f. 24-03-2008. The Hon'ble Bombay Hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h) in the case of KEC International Ltd. vs. ACIT (2010) 41 SOT 43 (Mum). 2.1 The AO noted that the assessee-company had acquired a brand for ₹ 13,50,00,180/- in the year 1999-2000 from Namah Shivay Enterprise. The AO followed the assessment order passed for the A.Y. 2005-06 and disallowed the claim of depreciation of ₹ 29,56,464/- in the A.Y. 2009-10 and ₹ 22,17,348/- in the A.Y. 2010-11. 2.2 The assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A) against the above order of the AO. We find that the learned CIT(A) followed the order of his predecessor-in-office and confirmed the disallowances made by the A.O. 2.3 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We find that in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me is an intellectual property right similar to knowhow, patents, trademarks and therefore the same is eligible for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii). The Ld. A.R. has further brought our attention to the fact that in earlier assessment years right from the year 2002- 03 up to A.Y. 2005-06, the assessee has been consistently been allowed depreciation on the brand name. In view of this, we do not find any justification on the part of authorities in disallowing the claim of depreciation on the brands for the year under consideration. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the assessee. 2.4 As the facts are same for the impugned assessment year, the AO is directed to allow the claim of depreciation made by the assessee of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowances made by the AO. The learned CIT(A) noted that the assessee had not given any details to work out the direct nexus of the interest expenditure related to the exempt income which was not included in the total taxable income. The learned CIT(A) also came to a finding that the assessee could not establish the nexus between the entire capital being invested in securities. Therefore, he confirmed the disallowances made by the A.O. 3.3 Before us, the learned counsel of the assessee relied on the order of the ITAT D Bench Mumbai in the case of Ramkumar Venugopal Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITA No. 6324/Mum/2012) for the A.Y. 2009-10. 3.4 The learned DR supported the order passed by the learned CIT(A) upholding the disallowa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
