TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 1042
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nst the appellant is opposed to law, equity, and weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The appellant denies itself to be liable to be assessed to a total income of Rs. 5,68,90,507/- as against the total income returned of Rs. (-) 54,96,67,319/- under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act under the facts and circumstances Hof the case. 3. Grounds on Transfer pricing issues: i. The learned Assessing officer/TPO/DRP were not justified in confirming the pricing adjustment of Rs. 41,49,488/- on the facts and circumstance of the case. ii. The learned Assessing officer/TPO/DRP were not justified in confirming that the service offered by the appellant were ITeS services, as against the services rende....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tances of the case. 4. Grounds on Depreciation: i. The learned Assessing officer/DRP were not justified in making a disallowance of the depreciation claimed on intangibles to the extent of Rs. 60,23,41,019/- as being excessive, on the facts and circumstances of the case. ii. The learned Assessing officer/DRP were not justified in making a disallowance of Rs. 33,22,83,957/- in respect of claim of depreciation on Trademarks acquired and utilised for the purpose of business on the facts and circumstances of the case. iii. The learned Assessing officer/DRP were not justified in making a disallowance of Rs. 13,01,30,063/- in respect of claim of depreciation acquired and utilised for the purpose of business on Logo and corporate brand....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....consequently denied total deprecation on the same on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. Without prejudice, the assessing officer ought to have adopted the principle of valuation as he deemed fit and granted depreciation atleast to the said extent and thus the non granting of any deprecation is totally contrary to law and thus the disallowance of depreciation is highly excessive and is required to be substantially reduced. 8. The learned Assessing officer/DRP were not justified in ignoring the fact that the assets acquired were pursuant to the receipt of approval /consent from the regulatory authorities who have verified and vetted the transaction and consequently passed a perverse order on the facts and circumstances of the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alified to do so, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 14. Without prejudice, if it were to be held that the assets acquired were not capital in nature, the same were to be allowed as a revenue expenditure on the facts and circumstances of the case. 15. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest under section 234B and 234D of the Act in view of the fact that there is no liability to additional tax as determined by the learned assessing officer. Without prejudice the rate, period and on what quantum the interest has been levied are not discernable from the order and hence deserves to be cancelled on the facts and circumstances of the case. 16. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify, delete or substitute any ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... technical know-how, etc. from Cosme group based in Goa. With the purchase of intangible assets, the assessee has entered into manufacturing, marketing and distribution of branded pharmaceutical products in India and some other countries. The cost of the assets acquired in January, 2013 was amounting to Rs. 481,87,28,153. Assessee claimed depreciation, but it was not allowed by the AO on the ground that valuation report was not furnished, whereas this claim of depreciation was allowed by the AO in the succeeding year i.e., AY 2014-15. In the light of these facts, we are of the view that once the AO has allowed the claim in the succeeding year, the same should also have been examined in the impugned assessment year. We accordingly set aside....