9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 1193X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... KEC International Ltd. vs. ACIT [2010 (6) TMI 523 - ITAT, MUMBAI]. 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 depreci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowed in favour of the assessee. - ITA No. 6358/M/2012 - - - Dated:- 6-4-2016 - Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member And Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member Assessee by : Shri Vimal Punniya, A.R. Revenue by : Shri C.W. Angolkar, D.R. ORDER Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 13.08.2012 of the Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s as the same is a part of the consideration paid for acquiring the brand and would be entitled to depreciation under section 32 of the Act as part of the brand. Even the Hon ble Bombay High Court, in the case of CIT vs. Techno Shares and Stocks Ltd. (2009) 184 taxman 103 (Bom.), which authority has been heavily relied upon by the Ld. D.R. also, in para 23 of the order has held that franchising ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
