Kontoor Brands Pvt.Ltd., (Formerly VF Brands India Private Limited), Bangalore V. The Assistant Commissioner of Income TAx Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

MA 28/BANG/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4565 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 28-04-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 29-03-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.P. No. 28/Bang/2022 (in IT(TP)A No. 1285/Bang/2017) Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/s. Kontoor Brands India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly VF Brands India Pvt. Ltd.), Bagmane Laurel, Block ‘B’, Level 9, 8 th Floor, Bagmane Tech Park, CV Raman Nagar, Bangalore – 560 093. PAN: AACCV2727L Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 4(1)(1), Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Shatanik Chakrabarty, CA Revenue by : Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 29-04-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present miscellaneous petition is filed by assessee seeking certain rectification in order dated 23.09.2021. 2. The first issue raised by the Ld.AR is that, in para 2.1 of the impugned order, the assessment year is wrongly mentioned to be assessment year 2012-13. It is submitted that order dated 16.02.2021 in IT(TP)A No. 2491/Bang/2019 pertains to Assessment Year 2015-16. Page 2 of 3 M.P. No. 28/Bang/2022 (in IT(TP)A No. 1285/Bang/2017) 3. On verification, we note that there is typographic mistake that has crept in para 2.1, and accordingly, the same is corrected. Henceforth in para 2.1, the assessment year shall be read as 2015-16 instead of 2012-13. 4. It has been submitted by the Ld.AR that following two issues were raised under the transfer pricing adjustment: 1. AMP adjustment towards AMP expenditure and 2. The second was in respect of rejection of depreciation claimed on intangible assets. The Ld.AR submitted that both these issues were covered in assessee’s favour by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Maruti Suzuki Ltd. reported in 381 ITR 117 and relevant observation by Hon’ble Delhi High Court has been reproduced in the impugned order. 5. The Ld.AR drew our attention towards para 12.4 of the relevant portion reproduced in the impugned order at page 8, wherein, eligibility for depreciation in respect of intangible asset has been decided in favour of assessee by the Hon’ble High Court and at page 9 of the impugned order the AMP expenditure has been decided in favour of assessee. The Ld.AR submitted that in para 2.5, being the conclusion in assessee’s case, no finding has been given in respect of depreciation on intangible asset. The assessee is seeking clarification in respect of the same. 6. We have perused the submissions based on records placed before us. From the relevant paragraph reproduced at pages 7-9, we note that at para 7 of the impugned order, the reasoning by Hon’ble Delhi High Court has been reproduced wherein eligibility of depreciation on intangible asset has been allowed. Hon’ble High Court therein upheld the view of Ld.CIT(A) in granting the depreciation in an appeal filed by revenue. Page 3 of 3 M.P. No. 28/Bang/2022 (in IT(TP)A No. 1285/Bang/2017) 7. In the present facts of the case, no distinguishing facts has been brought to our notice in respect of the same by the revenue. Respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Maruti Suzuki Ltd. (supra), we direct the Ld.AO to consider the claim of the assessee in respect of depreciation on intangible asset in accordance with principles laid down by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Maruti Suzuki (supra). In the result the miscellaneous petition filed by assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29 th April, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (B.R. BASKARAN) (BEENA PILLAI) Accountant Member Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated, the 29 th April, 2022. /MS / Copy to: 1. Appellant 4. CIT(A) 2. Respondent 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 3. CIT 6. Guard file By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore