2017 (5) TMI 1539 - AT - Income Tax

ITAT allows depreciation on paper brands and chemical plant, citing Income Tax Act and Trade Marks Act.

DCIT, New Delhi Versus ABC Paper Ltd.

DCIT, New Delhi Versus ABC Paper Ltd. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Depreciation on paper brands.2. Depreciation on the chemical recovery plant.Detailed Analysis:1. Depreciation on Paper Brands:The primary issue was whether the assessee's paper brands, acquired from M/s Amrit Banaspati Company Ltd. (ABCL) and treated as capital assets, were eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee claimed depreciation of Rs. 99,01,500/- for the assessment year 2008-09, which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer (AO) on the grounds that 'brands' are not covered under 'intangible assets' as per the Act.The Ld. CIT(A) deleted this addition, interpreting that the definition of 'intangible assets' under Section 32(1)(ii) includes not only trademarks but also any other business or commercial rights of similar nature. The CIT(A) relied on the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which includes 'brand' under the definition of 'mark'. Additionally, the CIT(A) referenced various case laws, including KEC International Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT and CIT Vs. Techno Shares and Stocks Ltd., which supported the view that brands are eligible for depreciation. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)’s decision, noting that the department failed to provide any judicial precedents to the contrary.2. Depreciation on Chemical Recovery Plant:The second issue was the disallowance of depreciation amounting to Rs. 7,44,36,109/- on the chemical recovery plant. The AO disallowed the claim on the basis that the plant was not put to use during the relevant assessment year as certain assets were still under construction/testing stage. The CIT(A) admitted additional evidence under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962, which corroborated the assessee's claim that the plant was commissioned and put to use during the year under consideration.The CIT(A) noted that the AO had allowed depreciation on the factory building, which was part of the same chemical recovery plant, but disallowed it on the plant and machinery, which was contradictory. The CIT(A) found that the plant was fully commissioned on 21.03.2008 and started operations, generating significant output. The AO's remand report verified the statutory Excise returns and other documents, which supported the assessee's claim. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)’s decision, dismissing the department's appeal on this issue as well.Conclusion:The ITAT dismissed the department's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)’s findings on both issues. The paper brands were deemed eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, and the chemical recovery plant was confirmed to have been put to use during the assessment year, making it eligible for depreciation. The ITAT's decision was based on a thorough evaluation of statutory provisions, judicial precedents, and factual evidence presented by the assessee.