TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 519X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cords - RG 23 C Part II (Entry book of duty credit of capital goods) and tallied the same with the Central Excise records, original invoices and original IGPs. The original IGPs which are made at the time receipt of the material were also produced before the AO during the remand proceeding and were duly verified by him and tallied with the relevant invoices. The AO has not made any adverse comment whatsoever on merit. Impugned addition made by the AO cannot be sustained on facts or in law. - Decided in favour of assessee - I.T.A. Nos.1339 TO 1346/Del/2017 - - - Dated:- 1-9-2017 - Shri H.S. Sidhu, Judicial Member And Shri Prashant Maharishi, Accountant Member For the Revenue : Sh. Vijay Verma, CIT(DR) For the Assessee : Sh. Mukul Bagla, CA ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : JM The Revenue has filed these 08 Appeals against the common impugned Order dated 20.12.2016 of the Ld. CIT(A)-IV, Kanpur relevant to assessment years 2006-07 to 2013-14 respectively. Since the issues involved in these appeals are common and identical, hence, the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience, by dealing with assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pon the Order of the AO and reiterated the contentions raised in the grounds of appeal. 5. On the contrary, Ld. Counsel of the assessee has relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and stated he has passed a well reasoned order which does not need any interference. During the hearing, Ld. Counsel of the assessee has filed a letter dated 6.7.2017 stating therein that in the case of the assessee, AO has passed an assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 30/12/2010 for assessment year 2008-09 and made the addition of ₹ 99,01,500/- on account of disallowed depreciation on paper brand on the ground that brands are not covered under intangible assets as per Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and ₹ 7,44,36,019/- on account of disallowance depreciation on chemical recovery plant on the ground that the plant was not put to use upto 31.3.2008. Ld. Counsel submitted that against order u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 30.12.2010, the assessee company had filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-IV, New Delhi who vide order dated 16.2.2012 deleted the disallowances made by the AO in full. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Department has filed the appeal before the ITAT and the I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A):- With regard to the addition on account of depreciation on chemical recovery plant, I have carefully gone through the assessment order, written submission filed as well as verbal argument of the Ld. ARs. Moreover, it is seen that the AO has made addition only to keep the matter live. Nothing has been mentioned in assessment order as to how it is related to evidence collected in search. Although AY 2013-14 is not a search year but addition, here also, has been made only to keep matter liver. During the course of appellate proceedings, Ld. AR of the appellant has submitted that the addition made by AO on this ground in assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act for AY 2008-09 has already been deleted by Ld. CIT(A)-IV, New Delhi vide his order in appeal no. 98/2010-11 dated 16.2.2012. I have carefully gone through the aforesaid appeal order and the detailed submission of appellant and case law relied upon by him. I find merit in the submission of appellant in light of cases relied upon by him i.e. i) Capital Bus Service (P) Ltd. vs. CIT, New Delhi (1980) 123 ITR 404. ii) CIT-IV vs. Insilco Limited (2010) 320 ITR 322. iii) CIT vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lack of proper appreciation of the provisions of the above Section which specifically includes not only trade mark but also any other business or commercial rights of similar nature . Further, since trade mark has not been specifically defined under the I T. Act, as pointed out by the Ld. AR vide written submission reproduced supra, we have to rely on the definition of trade mark under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. As per Section 2(zb) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 trade mark includes mark and the definition of mark as per Section 2(m) of the above Act specifically includes brand as follows: mark includes a device, brand, heading, label, ticket, name, signature, or any combination thereof. Further, as pointed out by the Ld. AR, as per para 7, 8 and 9 of the Accounting Standard 26 (AS 26) issued by the ICAI, the definition of intangible asset and trade mark specifically includes brand names . Even, the dictionary meaning of brand name as per the Illustrated Oxford Dictionary is an identifying trade mark , label etc. The Ld. AR has also relied upon a large number of case laws, viz. in the case of KEC International Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT (ITA no. 442 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, deleted. 5.1 This finding of the Ld. CIT (A) could not be controverted by the department before us. The department also could not point out any judicial precedents in favour of the revenue on this issue. We, therefore, uphold the finding of the Ld. CIT (A) on this issue and dismiss this ground of appeal of the department. 6.2 After perusing the aforesaid finding of the Tribunal, we are of the considered view that the issue in dispute in the present appeal, relating to allowing the depreciation on paper brand is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of the ITAT, hence, we respectfully follow the aforesaid decision of the ITAT and decide the issue against the Revenue. We also note that the factual finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute also could not be controverted by the department during the proceedings before us and we, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue as well and while upholding the same. 7. With regard to another issue relating to Depreciation on Chemical Recovery Plant is concerned, we find that the same is also squarely covered by the decision of the ITAT, A Bench, New Delhi vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowed the depreciation on plant and machinery, but has allowed depreciation on the factory building which is part and parcel of the same Chemical Recovery Plant. It is argued by the Ld. AR, both the building and plant and machinery were compositely completed and put to use together in March 2008. It is argued that the AO s action in partly allowing depreciation on the above factory while disallowing depreciation on the remaining part is bad in law and facts. Further, it is argued by the Ld. AR that the said Chemical Recovery Plant was fully commissioned on 21.03.2008 and it started its operations from the said date. The said plant generated 1823 tonnes of steam and 33 tonnes of caustic soda totaling ₹ 21,49,205/- during the year ended 31.03.2008. Further, the said expansion project was appraised and financed by the State Bank Group led by SBI which appointed M/s R.R. Dehra Associates, an independent firm of Chartered Engineers to monitor the implementation of above project and to submit periodical reports / certificates with regard to the progress of the said project. A copy of the reports / certificates dated 30.04.2008 issued by the above Chartered Engineer fir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
