TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 1016
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for brevity and convenience. 2. The 1st ground raised by the assessee in these appeals is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 29,56,464/- for the A.Y. 2009-10 and Rs. 22,17,348/- for the A.Y. 2010-11 on account of depreciation on brands u/s 32(1)(ii) by not considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Techno Shares & Stocks vs. CIT (2010) 193 TAXMAN 248 (SC) and the decision of ITAT (Mumbai Bench) in the case of KEC International Ltd. vs. ACIT (2010) 41 SOT 43 (Mum). 2.1 The AO noted that the assessee-company had acquired a brand for Rs. 13,50,00,180/- in the year 1999-2000 from Namah Shivay Enterprise. The AO followed the assessment order passed for the A.Y. 2005-06 and disallow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that the expression 'Licenses' is a very wide term and it includes the permission to carry on any trade business, profession etc. including the right to acquire the intellectual property. The co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal, in the case of "KEC International Ltd. vs. ACIT" (2010) 41 SOT 43 (Bom.), while relying upon the said decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that brand name is an intellectual property right similar to knowhow, patents, trademarks and therefore the same is eligible for depreciation under section 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....any has received dividend of Rs. 15,16,328/- which was claimed as exempt. The AO has given the reasons in his assessment order for invoking section 14A of the Act. Then he worked out the disallowance as per rule 8D and it comes to Rs. 17,47,107/- for the A.Y. 2009-10 and Rs. 1,52,633/- for the A.Y. 2010-11. 3.2 The assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A) against the above disallowances made by the AO. The learned CIT(A) noted that the assessee had not given any details to work out the direct nexus of the interest expenditure related to the exempt income which was not included in the total taxable income. The learned CIT(A) also came to a finding that the assessee could not establish the nexus between the entire capital being....