TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Permits Appeal Delay; Upholds Depreciation on Chemical Plant and Brand Names as Intangible Assets.</h1> <h3>Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Chandigarh Versus M/s. Kuantum Papers Ltd.</h3> Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Chandigarh Versus M/s. Kuantum Papers Ltd. - [2024] 462 ITR 194 (Del) Issues Involved:1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.2. Claim of depreciation on the chemical recovery plant.3. Claim of depreciation on brand names as intangible assets under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Summary:Condonation of Delay:The appellant/revenue sought condonation of a 50-day delay in filing the appeal. The respondent/assessee did not oppose this request. Consequently, the delay was condoned, and the application was disposed of.Depreciation on Chemical Recovery Plant:The first issue was whether the respondent/assessee rightly claimed depreciation amounting to Rs. 7,44,36,019/- for the chemical recovery plant. The Assessing Officer (AO) initially disallowed this claim, stating the plant was not fully operational. The respondent/assessee provided additional documents during the appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax-Appeals (CIT(A)), proving the plant commenced production on 21.03.2008. The CIT(A) called for a remand report from the AO, who verified the documents and found no adverse comments. The CIT(A) then allowed the depreciation claim, noting the plant generated steam and caustic soda and was fully operational from the specified date.Depreciation on Brand Names:The second issue was whether the respondent/assessee could claim depreciation on brand names as intangible assets under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) ruled in favor of the respondent/assessee, treating brand names as intangible assets. The Tribunal upheld this view, referencing the Supreme Court's judgment in Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Smifs Securities Ltd., which recognized goodwill as an asset under Section 32(1). The court further clarified that trademarks, including brand names, fall under the definition of intangible assets and are eligible for depreciation.Court's Conclusion:The court found both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal's decisions correct. It dismissed the appellant/revenue's argument that the additional evidence should not have been admitted by the CIT(A), noting that a remand report was called and provided an opportunity for the AO to respond. Regarding the depreciation on brand names, the court affirmed that brand names are a type of trademark and thus qualify as intangible assets under Section 32(1)(ii). Consequently, no substantial question of law arose, and the appeal was closed.
TaxTMI 