TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 778
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the appellate order framed by the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, ['Ld. CIT (A)'] is bad in law, illegal and without jurisdiction, as the same is framed in breach of the statutory provisions and as otherwise also is not in accordance with the law. 2. VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE 2.1 In the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the appellate order so framed in bad in law and illegal, as the same is framed in breach of the principles of Natural Justice. WITHOUT FURTHER PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE 3. CHALLENGE TO REASSESSMENT 3.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the A.O. in initiating the reassessment proceeding and framing the assessment of the Appellant by invoking the provisions of section 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act. 3.2 It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the reassessment framed is bad in law, illegal and without jurisdiction. WITHOUT FURTHER PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE 4. DISALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eals on different dates. 5. I say that the appellate order for A.Y. 2011-12 was passed on 29.08.2025, which was uploaded on the e-filing portal of the Company. This order was not sent by post. The said order was forwarded to the Company's tax consultant for further action, and it was advised to file appeal before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ['the Tribunal']. Accordingly, the appeal was filed on time on 01.10.2025. 6. I say that thereafter, the orders for A.Y. 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 were passed on 02.12.2025, 24.11.2025 and 24.11.2025 respectively. 7. I say when these orders were forwarded to the Company's tax consultant for filing appeals somewhere in late December, an inquiry was raised about fate of the appellate order for A.Y. 2012 13. While checking the e filing portal of the Company, it was noticed that while the orders for other four years were emailed at the registered e mailed address of the Company accounts a goldmohurpark.in, it appears that the appellate order for A.Y. 2012 13 which was disposed of on 28.08.2025, was not e accounts a goldmohurpark.in. Consequently, this order appears to have escaped atten....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that : 1. Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. ......................................................1.Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period." 2.4. Considering the submissions by both sides and respectfully following the observation by Hon'ble Supreme Court, we find it fit to condone the delay caused in filing the present appeals as it is not attributable to the assessee. In any event, though the procedural law pertaining to the limitation has been drafted to construe it stri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cription to share capital at a premium for the purpose of modernization and revival of the textile undertaking. 4.4. It was further submitted that, pursuant to the aforesaid arrangement, another agreement dated 15.11.2007 was entered into between National Textile Corporation Limited and the assessee, whereby the entire textile mill undertaking, together with the assets and liabilities specified therein, was transferred to the assessee on a going concern basis and on an "as is where is" basis. The transfer, inter alia, included licences, permits, contracts, rights, privileges and other incidental rights pertaining to the existing running textile business. 4.5. It was submitted that the said agreement also specifically contemplated leasing of the textile mill undertaking, pursuant to which a formal lease deed dated 15.11.2007 was executed between NTC and the assessee. Under the said lease deed, the leasehold land comprising the mill land as well as surplus land, together with all buildings and structures standing thereon, was leased by NTC in favour of the assessee. Thereafter, a Share Subscription and Shareholders' Agreement dated 22.11.2007 was executed amongst NTC, the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... allows depreciation on specified intangible assets such as know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licenses, franchises, and "any other business or commercial rights of similar nature." The expression "similar nature" has been interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Techno Shares and Stocks Ltd. v. CIT (327 ITR 323, SC) to mean rights which are similar to intellectual property rights and which enable a business to carry on its operations effectively. 8.3. In the present case, the payment of stamp duty and registration charges does not by itself create any independent commercial right. The substantive right allowed to the appellant is the leasehold right in immovable property. The stamp duty is only a statutory levy for executing such leasehold arrangement. Such payment cannot, therefore, be treated as a depreciable intangible asset. 8.4 The Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai in JCIT v. Mukund Ltd. (106 ITD 231) has categorically held that stamp duty and registration charges paid for obtaining leasehold rights cannot be capitalized as a depreciable asset but should be spread over the lease period. Similarly, in CIT v. Panbari Tea Co. Ltd. (57 ITR 422, SC), the Sup....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent or standalone agreement, but formed an integral part of the larger revival scheme framed by the Government of India and implemented pursuant to the Business Transfer Agreement. It was contended that the lease was not confined merely to the land, but also covered the buildings, structures, textile mill undertaking situated thereon, together with all easementary and appurtenant rights attached thereto. 6.2. It was further submitted that the lease was granted for a period of 30 years with an option of renewal for two further terms, at a nominal lease rent of Rs. 100 per annum without any additional premium or consideration. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had paid stamp duty amounting to Rs. 7,41,95,475/-, as adjudicated by the Stamp Authorities, in connection with the execution and registration of the lease deed, and the same was capitalized in the books of account under the head "Leasehold Rights" in accordance with the applicable accounting standards. 6.3. The Ld. AR further submitted that registration of the lease deed was delayed on account of disputes and litigation concerning heritage-related issues. It was submitted that the matter had still not attained final....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. reported in 113 ITR 0877 (Bom.) 7.1. Per contra, the Ld.DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the assessee was not entitled to depreciation on the stamp duty paid in connection with the lease deed, as the same did not qualify as an "intangible asset" within the meaning of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 7.2. The Ld.DR submitted that depreciation under the aforesaid provision is allowable only in respect of specified intangible assets such as know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licences and other rights of similar nature. Emphasis was placed on the expression "any other business or commercial rights of similar nature" occurring in section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 7.3. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Techno Shares and Stocks Ltd. Vs. CIT, reported in (327 ITR 323, SC), wherein it was held that the expression "rights of similar nature" refers to rights akin to intellectual property rights which facilitate the carrying on of business operations effectively. The Ld.DR contended that the stamp duty paid by the assessee was merely a statutory levy payable under the Stamp....