9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1585X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the claim of the assessee holding that assessee is engaged in the trading activity of such products which have definitely taken place during the year under consideration, as well as in the immediately preceding previous year. The business intellectual property rights were in hand with the appellant for manufacturing the products and also the appellant has used it for the trading purposes under the seal of its own by using the brand name of Monsanto. No infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT (A) and none has been pointed out by the Ld. departmental representative. It could not be controverted by the revenue that the assessee has used these brands for the purpose of its trading business. Furthermore, no provision could be shown before u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shows that assessee is a company which is wholly owned subsidiary of Sinochem International (overseas) Pte Ltd, Singapore. It is engaged in manufacturing through job work and trading in agrochemical i.e. pesticides etc. Assessee filed its return of income on 30/9/2010 declaring loss of ₹ 40844572/-. 4. During the course of assessment proceedings it was noted that appellant has during the year claimed depreciation on business intellectual property rights amounting to ₹ 56614759/- acquired from Monsanto India Ltd for ₹ 354506220/-. The Ld. AO asked assessee to explain the claim of the depreciation as it has not been put to use by the company. The assessee explained before the ld. Assessing Officer that same has been used ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r commercial right of similar nature as prescribed for depreciation allowance Under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act. Since the appellant is using the patent and trademark obtained from Monsanto India Ltd, it was an intangible asset on which depreciation at the rate of 30% was allowable. It was further stated by him that the company is engaged in the manufacturing and trading of agrochemicals and during the year the appellant has claimed the depreciation on the asset acquired during the year. It was further stated that the company has been using this intangible asset for commercial purposes since last year and for the last year depreciation has already been allowed by the AO on similar facts. Explaining the business of the assessee it was s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tedly using this brand for the past year also and the depreciation for the earlier assessment year has already been allowed to the assessee on similar facts. These facts have not been disputed by the ld. Departmental Representative or by the Assessing Officer. Further, the Ld. CIT (A) has also mentioned that no remedial action has been taken by the Ld. Assessing Officer for assessment year 2009-10, in which the original depreciation was allowed by the Ld. Assessing Officer. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee holding that assessee is engaged in the trading activity of such products which have definitely taken place during the year under consideration, as well as in the immediately preceding previous year. Further, according to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
