DCIT, CHENNAI V. Citadel Aurobindo Biotech Ltd., CHENNAI

ITA 467/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 90286 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-04-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 06-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RENGARAJ IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: S VENKATRAM
• Keywords: Capital asset; Depreciation

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI , . ! , ' #$ BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NOS.467, 468 & 469/MDS/2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2002-03, 2004-05 & 2005-06) THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE I (2), CHENNAI 600 034. ( %& /APPELLANT) VS M/S. CITADEL AUROBINDO BITOTECH LTD, NO.43, MAIN ROAD, VELACHERY, CHENNAI 600 042. [PAN:AABCC 7824N] ( '(%& /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. RENGARAJ, IRS, CIT. / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. S. VENKATRAM, C.A. /DATE OF HEARING : 08.04.2015 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08.04.2015 ) / O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THESE THREE APPEALS BY REVENUE ARE DIRECT ED AGAINST DIFFERENT ORDERS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, C HENNAI, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-2003, 2004-2005 AND 2005-2006 . SINCE THE I.T.A.NOS.467, 468 & 469/MDS/2015 :- 2 -: ISSUE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS ARE COMMON IN NATUR E, THESE APPEALS ARE CLUBBED, HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OF BY A CO MMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE COMMON GROUND IN THESE APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO ALLOWING 25% DEPRECIATION ON NON-COMPETE FEE. AT THE TIME OF COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED DEPRECI ATION AS NON COMPETE FEE DOES NOT FALL IN SUCH CATEGORY. AGGRIEV ED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (APPEALS). ON APPEAL, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS) RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF PENTASOFT TECHNOLOGIES LTD (2014) (41 TAXMANN.COM 1 20) AND ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGAINST THIS, THE REVEN UE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MAT ERIAL ON RECORD. A SIMILAR ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED BY JURISDICT IONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PENTASOFT TECHNOLOGIES LTD VS. DCIT 222 TAXMAN 2009 (MAD), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT ASSETS LIKE TRADEMARK, PAT ENTS AND OTHER RIGHTS ARE SIMILAR IN NATURE ARE INTANGIBLE A SSETS, WHICH IN TERMS OF SECTION 32(1) (II) OF THE ACT WOULD BE A CAPITAL ASSETS ENTITLED TO DEPRECIATION. IN VIEW OF THE ORDER OF THE JURISDIC TIONAL HIGH COURT, WE I.T.A.NOS.467, 468 & 469/MDS/2015 :- 3 -: ARE INCLINED TO CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS FILED BY THE DEPART MENT IN THE ITA NOS.467, 468 & 469/MDS/2015 ARE DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 8 TH OF APRIL, 2015, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ! ) V. DURGA RAO ' / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ) (CHANDRA POOJARI) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER !' /CHENNAI. #$ /DATED: 08.04.2015. KV $% &' (' /COPY TO: 1. ) APPELLANT 2. / RESPONDENT 3. * ( )/CIT(A) 4. * /CIT 5. '+, - /DR 6. ,. / /GF.