TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 1829
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sues involved in all these appeals are similar as well as interconnected, therefore, considering the commonalitiy of the issues involved and for the sake of convenience, all these appeals are clubbed, heard together and disposed of in this consolidated order. Appeal wise adjudication is given in the following paragraphs of this order. 2. The core issue raised in all these appeals relates to the allowability of depreciation on the "actual cost‟ of the asset arrived at by virtue of revaluation of the "trademark‟. Since, the AY 1999-2000 is the first year, where such revaluation was done, our decision on the claim of this year would have cascading effect on the rest of the AYs under consideration by virtue of allowability of dep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion 43(1) of the Act. This issue travelled to the ITAT in the first round of the second appellate proceedings. Before the Tribunal, assessee raised additional legal grounds and the same are extracted in page 3 of the order of the Tribunal in ITA No.2218/M/2006 (AY 1999-2000), dated 29.7.2009 and the said additional grounds read as under: "1. The Ld AO erred on facts and in law in not obtaining the approval of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax before substituting the value of brand acquired by the appellant while applying Explanation-3 to section 43(1). 2. The Ld AO failed to appreciate that without obtaining the approval of the JCIT, he could not have substituted the value of brand as per Explanation-3 to section 43(1)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eduction of liability to tax. However, in the absence of complete records it cannot be said that the AO had obtained prior approval of the JCIT. Hence, the disallowance of claim of depreciation under this section is also not correct." 5. Basing on the above conclusion drawn by the CIT (A), Shri Dr. K. Shivram, Ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that the AO failed to obtain the prior approval of the JCIT before the revalued cost is substituted. In such circumstances, the order of the AO on this issue becomes nullity. In this regard, Ld Counsel for the assessee brought our attention to Ground no.2 of the original grounds of appeal which reads as under:- "2. The Ld CIT (A) failed to appreciate that when he has given finding that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aluation report dated 17.11.1998 furnished by the assessee without referring the asset to the DVO for his valuation, if any, on the trademark. Assessing Officer is not an expert on this issue and therefore, the rejection of the valuation report furnished by the assessee is not correct. For this proposition, Ld Counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of the ITAT, Ahmedabad in the case of Unimed Technologies Ltd vs. DCIT [2000] 73 ITD 150 (Ahd.) and the judgment of the Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Ashwin Vanaspati Industries vs. CIT [2002] 255 ITR 26 (Guj). These decisions suggest for accepting the valuation report furnished by the assessee and depreciation should be granted on the enhanced cost of the asset. 9. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er, CIT (A) is also directed to examine the applicability of the cited judgment of the Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Ashwin Vanaspati Industries (supra) and others. Further also, CIT (A) should examine the applicability of the 5th proviso to section 32(1) of the Act and give reasons in writing on how the amended provisions apply to the facts of the present case. Thus, we remand the whole of the issue relating to the claim of depreciation on the trademark to the file of the CIT (A) for third round of the proceedings before him. This time, the CIT (A) is directed to examine each of the issues discussed above in a time bound manner attending to all the arguments raised by the Ld Counsel for the assessee before him in the set ....