TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 1766
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....though the appeals filed by the Revenue are for two different assessment years but the facts and issues involved in both the appeals are identical except for the assessment year and the amounts involved and the Ld.CIT (A) has also passed a consolidated order and therefore the submissions made by them while arguing one appeal would be equally applicable to the other appeal also and thus, both the appeals can be heard together. In view of the aforesaid submissions of both the parties, we, for the sake of convenience, proceed to dispose of both the appeals by a consolidated order but however, proceed with narrating the facts for assessment year 2005-06. 3. The relevant facts as culled out from the material on record are as under :- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is reproduced hereunder : 4....... In this regard, the learned AR pointed out that this issue is covered by the order of the Tribunal Pune Bench, Pune in the case of Ashoka Info (P) Ltd. Vs. Asstt. CIT (2009) 123 TTJ (Pune) 77 wherein with regards to intangible assets and toll collection rights the Tribunal observed that the investment made by the assessee towards construction of a road on built, operate and transfer (BOT) basis in terms of an agreement with the State Government and thereafter an independent right in the form of a licence of toll collection was granted to the assessee for a fixed period of 16 years and 9 months. Applying the doctrine of ejusdem generic for the purpose of interpretation of sec. 32(1)(ii), the word "....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT (A) has erred in accepting ownership of the assessee over the Right to Collect Toll when there was no proof provided by the assessee in support of the same. 3. The order of the Ld.CIT (A) may be vacated and the Assessing Officer be restored." 5. Before us, Ld.D.R. supported the order of AO. Ld.A.R. on the other hand, reiterated the submissions made before AO and Ld.CIT (A) and further submitted that Ld.CIT (A) had rightly allowed the claim of depreciation of assessee by following the decision of Tribunal in assessee's own case in ITA No. 222, 223, 233 & 857/PN/2009 for A.Ys. 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2006-07 dt. 18.03.2011. He placed on record the copy of the aforesaid order and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of ejusdem generic for the purpose of interpretation of sec. 32(1)(ii), the word "licence" could be read along with the words "commercial rights of similar nature". Therefore, the licence granted by the State Government for collection of toll was held as an intangible asset and depreciation was held to be allowable thereon. Nothing contrary was brought to our knowledge. Facts being similar, so following the same reasoning, we hold that the assessee was entitled to claim of depreciation on intangible asset viz. right to collect toll from the road over the bridge on the parity of reasoning that the assessee was not the owner inspite of the fact that the collection was treated as income of the assessee company and was also approved by the Sta....