TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (10) TMI 64
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the appellate orders of her predecessors, which have not been accepted by Department and the Departmental appeals are pending before Hon'ble ITAT. 2. Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,11,35,236/- being depreciation on intangible assets without appreciating the fact that the assessee has failed to furnish valuation of the intangible assets and substantiate the same. 3. Ld.CIT(A) is erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition on account of disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 7,11,35,236/- on the block of intangible assets without appreciating that the valuation of intangible assets of 1246.69 Crore out of total consideration of Rs. 1908 Crore is on account of going concern besides valuation of fixed assets i.e. building Plant and Machinery. 4. Ld.CIT(A) is erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,11,35,236/- being depreciation on intangible assets claimed in the form of Gas Price Rights, Locational Benefits of present and future products and trained manpower without appreciating that Gas Price and products are under government control for which no intangible assets can be created and the assessee compan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owed. In substance, Ld.CIT(A) had allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved against this, the Revenue has filed the present appeal. 6. Ground Nos.1 to 4 raised by the Revenue are against the deletion of addition of Rs. 7,11,35,236/- on account of depreciation on account intangible assets. 7. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the issues are covered against the Revenue by the decision of this Tribunal in earlier years. He submitted that in ITA No.746/Del/2011 relating to Assessment Year 2006-07 in assessee's own case wherein the issues have been decided in favour of the assessee. 8. Ld. Sr. DR could not controvert this fact that the issue has been decided against the Revenue by the Tribunal in earlier years. 9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The Tribunal under the identical facts in ITA No.4963/Del/2015 for Assessment Year 2011-12 in assessee's own case has allowed the depreciation on intangible assets by observing as under:- 56. "Following the decision rendered by Hon'ble High Court and coordinate Bench of the Tribunal discussed in the preceding paras, which are squarely applicable to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t by the Govt. in lieu of payment of subsidy. The impugned bonds were repurchased by the Govt. in 2 phases 50% of bonds in FY 2010-11 and 50% in FY 2011-12 to the RBI. The price of such buyback was also decided by the Govt. as per the formula prescribed. Consequently on such buyback by Govt. the appellant received a value less than the purchase value of the bond. Having considered these facts, it is clear to me that the loss had been incurred in the normal course of business and in the process of compensation accrued and due to the appellant vis a vis its manufacturing activities. It Is also pertinent to note that the loss has not been disallowed as such. On the other hand, the loss had been disallowed stating that the amount of the of the fertilizers bonds (subsidy) have been as a revenue receipt in the respective AYs in which they were received, either separately as revenue from operations (schedule 2.22 of the annual report for Assessment Year 2011-12) or as 'price support' included in the sales (net of discounts/rebates) in the financial statements for earlier years. Effectively, therefore, the final amount received on sale back of Govt. subsidy /Govt. bonds is a busine....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... fact that the assessee has failed to furnish valuation of the intangible assets and substantiate the same. 3. Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition on account of disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 5,33,51,427/- on the block of intangible assets without appreciating that the valuation of intangible assets of 1246.69 Crore out of total consideration of Rs. 1908 Crore is on account of going concern besides valuation of fixed assets i.e. building Plant and Machinery. 5. Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,33,51 ,427/- being depreciation on intangible assets claimed in the form of Gas Price Rights, Locational Benefits of present and future products and trained manpower without appreciating that Gas Price and products are under government control for which no intangible assets can be created and the assessee company is already claiming salary and wages of skilled manpower thus claiming double deduction for the same skilled manpower claimed as intangible assets as well as depreciation. 5. "That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or forego any ground(s) of the appeal raised above at the time of hearing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed in deleting the addition on account of disallowance of expenses on vehicle Repair & Maintenance of Rs. 10,09,679/-, when this amount of expenditure could not be supported by the vehicle shown in fixed asset schedule. (6) That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law. (7) That the grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. (8) That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or forego any ground(s) of the appeal raised above at the time of hearing." 20. Ground Nos. 1 to 3 raised by the Revenue on account of disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets of Rs. 4,00,13,570/-. 21. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issues raised in this appeal are covered by the orders of Tribunal passed in earlier years. 22. Ld. Sr. DR could not controvert this fact. 23. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. We find that similar issues have been raised in earlier years also. The Tribunal vide consolidated order in ITA Nos. 852/Del/2011 [Assessment Year 2007-08] & 3569/Del/2011 [Assessment Year 2008-09], decided the same in favour of the assessee. The Reven....