https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199747 The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, allowing depreciation on paper brands and the chemical recovery plant. Paper brands were considered intangible assets eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, supported by the Trade Marks Act and case law. The chemical recovery plant was found to be operational during the assessment year, contradicting the AO's disallowance based on incomplete construction/testing. The ITAT's ruling was based on legal interpretations and factual evidence, dismissing the department's appeal. en-us Thu, 11 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Mar 2018 06:08:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199747 The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, allowing depreciation on paper brands and the chemical recovery plant. Paper brands were considered intangible assets eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, supported by the Trade Marks Act and case law. The chemical recovery plant was found to be operational during the assessment year, contradicting the AO's disallowance based on incomplete construction/testing. The ITAT's ruling was based on legal interpretations and factual evidence, dismissing the department's appeal. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 11 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199747