9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (12) TMI 565X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se four appeals by the Revenue for the Asstt.Year 2004-2005, 2005-2006 and 2006- 2007 are directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income- Tax (Appeals), Ahmedabad. They are being disposed of with this consolidated order. 2. Identical ground in all appeals in these four appeals by the Revenue reads as under: 1. The ld.CI(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the following a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partners and thereafter two new partners have joined the partnership firm. He submitted that the assessee-firm had exclusive right for marketing of the products of its sister concern and assessee-firm had established trade mark of its own. He relied on the decision of the ITAT Mumbai Benches in the case of Skyline Carters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, 20 SOT 266 (Mum) in support of the arguments. 4. We h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee had established trademark of its own. In these facts, the assessee had claimed depreciation on the above said intangible asset acquired from the outgoing partners under Section 32(1)(ii) of the IT Act. These facts have not been doubted by the Revenue. The CITA) recorded a finding that the payments had been made not only for the sake of Goodwill but for rights of commercial nature i.e. marke ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there is no mistake in the order of the CIT(A) in holding that the market rights of the products of the M/s.Talent Gujarat were acquired by the partners of the firm and therefore the outgoing partners were to be paid some consideration as they were foregoing their rights to the incoming partners and denial of the depreciation on goodwill was not justified. In this view of the matter we confirm or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
