TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 1288X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. CIT(A). In view of the aforesaid facts, we find no reason to interfere with the order of ld. CIT(A). - Decided against revenue. - ITA Nos. 1337 & 1339/Ahd/2011 - - - Dated:- 19-2-2016 - Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Judicial Member and Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Accountant Member By Revenue: Smt. Sonia Kumar, Sr. D.R. By Assessee: Shri Milin Mehta, A.R. ORDER Shri Anil Chaturvedi, These two appeals filed by Assessee are against the orders of CIT(A)VI, Baroda, dated 25.02.2011 for A.Ys. 2002-03 and 2007-08. 2. Before us, at the outset, ld. A.R. submitted that though the appeals of assessee relate to two different assessment years, but the issue in both the appeals are identical and thus, both the appeals can b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that when the expenditure treated as deferred revenue expenditure results in the creating of any capital asset, tangible or intangible., a case can be made out to treat the same as capital expenditure. iii). The ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that mere disallowance of depreciation does not mean that no capital asset has been brought into existence. iv). The ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that in the annual report for the F.Y.2001-02 under the head significant accounting policies, it is stated that the cost incurred on product development and technical knowhow is accumulated and treated as deferred revenue expenditure. When the cost is accumulated as technical knowhow it is intangible capital in nature. 5. Before us, ld. D.R. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal before us. 8. Before us, ld. D.R. supported the order of A.O. and further relied on the Special Bench decision in case of ACIT Vs. Ashima Syntex Ltd. (2009) 117 ITD 001. She, thus, supported the order of A.O. Ld. A.R., on the other hand, reiterated the submissions made before the A.O. and ld. CIT(A) and further submitted that while deciding the issue in assessee s own case for A.Y. 2002-03. Ld. CIT(A) after considering the various decisions cited in his order and after also considering the decision of Special Bench in case of ACIT Vs. Ashima Syntex Ltd.(supra) had decided the issue in favour of the assessee. He pointed out to the relevant finding of ld. CIT(A) in A.Y. 2002-03. He, therefore, submitted that since there are no change i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e facts of the case are different. ii). The ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the ITAT, Ahmedabad, Spl. Bench in the case of ACIT Vs. Ashima Syntex Ltd. (2009) 117 ITD 001 has held that when the expenditure treated as deferred revenue expenditure results in the creating of any capital asset, tangible or intangible., a case can be made out to treat the same as capital expenditure. iii). The ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that mere disallowance of depreciation does not mean that no capital asset has been brought into existence. iv). The ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that in the annual report for the F.Y.2001-02 under the head significant accounting policies, it is stated that the cost incurred on product development and technical ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
