TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (12) TMI 1123
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iduary. b) Hon'ble CIT(A) also failed to disregard the letter filed by the Appellant stating that the other residuary trademarks are not at all launched in the market and accordingly, it possess no value. c) In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of the LAO on assumption and without any evidence to rebut the fact that the total consideration was only for "Jealous" trademark and other residuary trademarks were not at all launched in the market. 2. Without prejudice to Ground no.3, even if the three trademarks were not actually put to use during the year, they were 'ready for use' and hence depreciation is allowable on the same." 3. The assessee also raised following additional grounds:- "The Appellant prays to submit the under-mentioned additional ground of appeal which were not urged specifically in the original grounds of appeal filed at the time of institution of appeal. These grounds do not involve any investigation of any facts otherwise on the record of the department and are also pure questions of law, which goes into the very root of the matter of jurisdiction and vali....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... each trademark, the AO apportioned the total payment of Rs. 125 lakhs equally among the four trade Marks and disallowed depreciation claimed on the other three i.e. total disallowance Rs. 31,38,442/-. 7. The CIT(A) observed that the assessee acquired 4 trademarks and consideration paid for them was Rs. 1.25 crores and there was segregation of price paid for each trademarks as such the amount paid of Rs. 1.25 croes to be attributable to all the 4 trademarks. Only 1 trade mark viz., 'Jealous' was used for depreciation and other trademarks were not used so as to grant depreciation. Before the CIT(A), the assessee filed one letter received from Mr. Prem Gupta, Director of Miracle Lifestyle Ltd., wherein it was confirmed that payment of Rs. 1.25 croes received from assessee is only related to 'Jealous' and 3 trademarks are additional trademarks given to the assessee. The ld.CIT(A) observed that no credence to be given to this letter. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. 8. The ld.AR submitted that 1. The actual cost of Rs. 1.25 crore adopted by the Appellant was on the basis that the said sum was paid by it for the purchase of the 'Jealous' trademark alone.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... intention to avoid tax. No such approval is obtained nor has the AO arrived at such satisfaction. As such the LAO has incorrectly changed the actual cost. In this regard, reliance is placed on the following rulings: a. DCIT v. Lafarge India Limited (9 taxmann.com 40) (p. 8, para 13 of the case law compilation volume 2); b. DCIT v. Jaya Hind Sciaky Ltd. (65 taxmann.com 60) (p. 14-15, para 12-14 of the case law compilation volume 2); c. CIT v. SRF Ltd. (56 taxmann.com 173) (p. 21-22, para 8-9 of the case law compilation volume 2); d. Nirma Industries Limited v. DCIT (29 taxmann.com 89) (p. 39 para 3.5 of the case law compilation volume 2); e. DCIT v. S.V.P.B. Spinners (P.) Ltd. (82 taxmann.com 278) (p. 48-54, para 11-16 of the case law compilation volume 2); f. Unimed Technologies Ltd. v. DCIT (73 ITD 150) (p. 70, para 19 of the case law compilation volume 2); g. Chitra Publicity Company (P) Ltd.v. ACIT (127 TTJ 1 (Ahmedabad)) (p. 137, para 17.2-25 of the case law compilation volume 2); h. Ashwin Vanaspati Industries v. CIT (125 Taxman 59) (p. 149-150, para 20 of the case law compilation volume 2); i. A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 452)- Kerala High Court b. CIT vs Swarup Vegetable Products India Ltd , (277 ITR 60)- Allahabad High Court c. CIT v. Radio Today Broadcasting Ltd (64 taxmann.com 332) - Delhi High Court d. CIT v. Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd (37 taxmann.com 332) - Madras High Court e. CIT v. Yamaha Motor India (P) Ltd (328 ITR 297) - Delhi High Court 9. The ld.DR relied on the order of the ld.CIT(A). 10. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials on record. In the present case, main argument of the ld.AR is that consideration paid for a sum of Rs. 1.25 crores is only related to the trademark for 'Jealous' and it has not related to other trademarks viz., 'Analyse', Detour' & 'JLS'. 11. We have carefully gone through agreement entered by the assessee with Jealous Fashions Pvt. Ltd., on 1st June, 2005, wherein the assessee made payment of Rs. 1.25 crores for purchase of following trademarks. 12. Contrary to this, the submission of AR is that the assessee has paid a sum of Rs. 1.25 crores only for one trademark i.e 'Jealous'. However, we find that the agreement entered for acquisition of four trademarks and not for one trademark. Being....