TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 980
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eard together and are being disposed of by way of this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. In both the years, there is only one grievance of the assessee i.e., regarding disallowance of depreciation to the extent of Rs. 30.62.500/- in Assessment Year 2013-14 and Rs. 22,96,875/- in Assessment Year 204-15 claimed by the assessee on trade marks. 3. In the course of hearing, it was submitted by learned AR of the assessee that on pages 131 to 133 of the Paper Book is the valuation report for trademarks prepared by M/s. RSCA & Co, Chartered Accountants dated 05.09.2017. At this juncture, the Bench pointed out that this valuation report is of a date much after and secondly, in this valuation report, future cash flow for Financial Year....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der rendered in the case of ACIT Vs. Krystal Colloids Pvt. Ltd., in ITA No.3170/MUM/2016 dated 31.07.2018, copy available on pages 144 to 153 of the Paper Book and he submitted that the relevant page is 153 of the Paper Book. Learned DR supported the order of the CIT(A) in both the years. 4. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that in Assessment Year 2013-14 in para 2 of the Assessment Order, it is noted by the AO that the transaction regarding purchase of trade mark was between sister concerns of the assessee and the same was purchased at Rs. 1.4 Crores by the assessee but it was submitted by the learned AR of the assessee before the AO that the valuation of the same could not be substantiated with any evidence. Because of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....00/- offered to tax as Short Term Capital Gains. The Tax Computation Sheet of the said company is also produced. It is seen from the said computation that these amounts have been set off against brought forward losses which would have expired in a couple of years perhaps. The contention that the assignment is Revenue Neutral is not correct. The AO has rightly made the disallowance. The Appellant states that the disallowance is done due to a change in opinion as depreciation has been allowed in the original year of claim ie. AY 2012-13 and the Appellant has also enclosed a copy of the order u/s 143(3) of the said A.Y 2012-13. It is observed from the said order that there is no discussion on this issue at all. It is not a case where the AO ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cord, the assessee has to seek permission of the Bench and comply with the relevant rule. In the facts of the present case, this valuation report appears to be a new evidence which appears in the Paper Book without complying with the Tribunal Rules in respect of filing of Paper Book and hence, we do not admit the valuation report. Now we examine the applicability of the Tribunal order cited by learned AR of the assessee having been rendered in the case of ACIT Vs. Krystal Colloids Pvt. Ltd. (supra). We find that in that case, it is noted by the Tribunal in para 3 of that order that in that case, the AO has found that the assessee is not eligible for depreciation on assets as per 5th proviso to section 32(1) which provides that the aggregate....