M/S. TATA HITACHI CONSTRUCTION MACHINERY COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, CIRCLE - 2, BANGALORE

ITA 323/BANG/2020

AI Insights

The case involves Tata Hitachi Construction Machinery Company Pvt. Ltd., the appellant, contesting the disallowance of depreciation on Brand and Technology for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16. The depreciation amounts in question were Rs.17,27,53,888 and Rs.12,95,65,416 respectively. The disallowance was confirmed by the CIT(Appeals)-14, Bengaluru, based on a prior decision for AY 2013-14, where the actual cost of Brand and Technology was considered Nil. This prior decision is still pending appeal, and the tribunal found it appropriate to wait for the outcome of that appeal before deciding on the current ones.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 822444 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 9 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 09-03-2020
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PRATIBHA R.
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(IT)A Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2020 Assessment years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Tata Hitachi Construction Machinery Company Pvt. Ltd., Jubilee Building, No.45, Museum Road, Bangalore – 560 025. PAN: AAACT 9077B Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Tax Payers Unit, Circle 2, Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Pratibha R., Advocate Respondent by : Dr. Divya K J, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 18.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement : .11.2025 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, Vice President 1. This appeal is filed by Tata Hitachi Construction Machinery Company Pvt. Ltd. (the assessee/appellant) for the assessment years 2014-15 & 2015-16 against the appellate order passed by the CIT(Appeals)-14, Bengaluru [ld. CIT(A)] dated 13.1.2020 & 20.1.2020 respectively. 2. The only issue in both the appeals is that the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the disallowance of depreciation on Brand and Technology amounting to Rs.17,27,53,888 and Rs.12,95,65,416 for the respective assessment years. Printed from counselvise.com IT(IT)A Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2020 Page 2 of 4 3. In one of the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, it is submitted that the allowability of the above depreciation is subject to the outcome of the assessee’s appeal before the CIT(A), LTU for AY 2013-14 wherein the assessee has objected to the action of the ld. AO in holding the actual cost of Brand and Technology from M/s Serviplem Technology and M/s. Comoplesa Lebrero as Nil. 4. Before us also it is submitted by the ld. AR, Smt. Pratibha R., Advocate that the issue for the first year for AY 2013-14 is pending before the ld. CIT(A), LTU and unless that issue is decided, the issue of depreciation for these respective appeals cannot be decided. 5. The ld. CIT(DR) also confirmed the fact that assessee’s appeal before the ld. CIT(A), LTU for AY 2013-14 is stated to be pending. 6. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the ld. lower authorities. The assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacture, purchase and sale of hydraulic excavators, loaders, mechanical shovels, cranes, dumpers, etc. During the AY 2013-14 the assessee acquired the two companies Serviplem and Comoplesa and stated that it has also acquired the value of Brand and Technology amounting to Rs.77.82 crores. The ALP of the above asset was considered at Nil by the ld. TPO and therefore the ld. AO disallowed the depreciation of Rs.9,72,75,000 for that assessment year. The appeal against that assessment year is pending before the ld. CIT(A), LTU since 8.3.2017. It is stated that still it is not decided. Meanwhile for the assessment years in the appeals before us action u/s. Printed from counselvise.com IT(IT)A Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2020 Page 3 of 4 154 of the Act was taken and consequent depreciation was not allowed in both these years. When we find that the first year of the claim of depreciation for AY 2013-14 is not decided even after 8 years of filing of the appeal by the CIT(A), LTU, these appeals for AYs 2014-15 & 2015-16 are merely consequential. It is also surprising that the ld. CIT(A) for both these assessment years has noted that the appeal for AY 2013-14 is pending before the CIT(A), LTU, still confirmed the disallowance of depreciation made u/s. 154 of the Act. Judicial propriety demands that the ld. CIT(A) for both these assessment years should have tagged either the appeal of the assessee to AY 2013-14 along with these appeals or should have waited for the decision of the ld. CIT(A) for AY 2013-14. As it is not known to us that when the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 would be decided, these appeals are also restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide these consequent appeals after deciding the issue in AY 2013-14. Accordingly both these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes without commenting on the merits of the case. Pronounced in the open court on this …….. day of November, 2025. ( SOUNDARARAJAN K. ) ( PRASHANT MAHARISHI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Bangalore, Dated, the …. November, 2025. /Desai S Murthy / Printed from counselvise.com IT(IT)A Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2020 Page 4 of 4 Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Bangalore. Printed from counselvise.com "