2018 (3) TMI 519 - AT - Income Tax

Depreciation on paper brands - allowable capital expenditure - Held that - As relying on DCIT vs. ABC Paper Ltd 2017 (5) TMI 1539 - ITAT DELHI wherein held since the assessee had purchased the user of brand name, trademark, logo for 3 years and similarly, the intellectual property right such as design, drawings, manufacturing processes and technical knowhow in respect of the products manufactured by unit was acquired, we hold that the expenditure incurred in this regard as valued by the approved valuer is capital expenditure on which the claimed depreciation was allowable - Decided in favour of assessee Depreciation on Chemical Recovery Plant - Held that - Again relying on DCIT vs. ABC Paper Ltd supra wherein held AO vide his remand report as mentioned that he has duly verified the statutory Excise returns filed with the Central Excise Department alongwith Cenvat credit records wherein the said Cenvat credit pertaining the Chemical Recovery Plant (CRP) was entered and also its corresponding entries in the Excise records - 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

Issues Involved:
1. Depreciation on paper brands.
2. Depreciation on Chemical Recovery Plant.
3. Assessment validity under section 153A.
4. Allegation of "colorable device" for tax avoidance.
5. Requirement of asset usage within the financial year for claiming depreciation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Depreciation on Paper Brands:
The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in allowing depreciation on paper brands, arguing that these are non-depreciable assets due to their indefinite life. The assessee countered that the brands qualify as intangible assets under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, which includes "know-how, patents, copyrights, trade marks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature." The CIT(A) and ITAT upheld the depreciation claim, referencing prior decisions and the inclusive definition of intangible assets, which encompasses brands. The ITAT cited multiple precedents and the Trade Marks Act, 1999, affirming that brands are eligible for depreciation.

2. Depreciation on Chemical Recovery Plant:
The Revenue argued that the Chemical Recovery Plant was not put to use within the financial year, thus disqualifying it for depreciation. The assessee provided evidence, including statutory returns and independent certifications, proving the plant's commissioning and operational status as of March 21, 2008. The CIT(A) and ITAT found the evidence convincing and noted that the AO's partial allowance of depreciation on the factory building, part of the same plant, contradicted the disallowance on the machinery. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, allowing the depreciation claim.

3. Assessment Validity under Section 153A:
Post-search assessments for AY 2006-07 to AY 2012-13 were conducted under Section 153A, leading to reassessments. The AO's disallowances mirrored those in the original assessments, which were pending appeal. The CIT(A) and ITAT found that the reassessments were attempts to keep the issues alive rather than based on new evidence from the search. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s deletions of the disallowances.

4. Allegation of "Colorable Device" for Tax Avoidance:
The Revenue claimed the purchase of the paper brand from a sister concern was a "colorable device" for tax avoidance. The CIT(A) and ITAT found no merit in this claim, noting that the transaction was legitimate and the brand qualified as an intangible asset eligible for depreciation.

5. Requirement of Asset Usage within the Financial Year:
The Revenue argued that the Chemical Recovery Plant was not used within the financial year, disqualifying it for depreciation. The assessee provided substantial evidence of the plant's commissioning and usage before the financial year's end. The CIT(A) and ITAT found this evidence credible and consistent with statutory requirements, allowing the depreciation claim.

Conclusion:
The ITAT dismissed all 08 appeals filed by the Revenue, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on all issues. The judgments emphasized adherence to statutory definitions, consistency with prior rulings, and the credibility of the assessee's evidence. The ITAT found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s well-reasoned orders, affirming the depreciation claims on both the paper brand and the Chemical Recovery Plant.

← Previous Next →