Case Law Details
DCIT Vs Kuantum Papers Ltd. (ITAT Delhi)
As per para 7, 8 and 9 of the Accounting Standard 26 (AS 26) issued by the ICAI, the definition of “intangible asset” and trade mark specifically includes “brand names”. Even, the dictionary meaning of “brand name” as per the Illustrated Oxford Dictionary is “an identifying trade mark”, “label” etc. The Ld. AR has also relied upon a large number of case laws, viz. in the case of KEC International Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT (ITA no. 4420/Mum/2009) wherein it was held by the Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal that brand is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under Section 32 of the Act. Further, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Techno Shares and Stocks Ltd. (ITR 323(69) Mumbai) held that “brand” is an intellectual property which can be equated with “trade mark”. Further, the Hon’ble ITAT, Pune vide its recent order dated 23.08.2011 in the case of M/s Dilbris International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITA no. 1361 PN/2010) relying on the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT, Delhi in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT has held that brand name is eligible for depreciation.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:-
The Revenue has filed these 08 Appeals against the common impugned Order dated 20.12.2016 of the Ld. CIT(A)-IV, Kanpur relevant to assessment years 2006-07 to 2013-14 respectively. Since the issues involved in these appeals are common and identical, hence, the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience, by dealing with assessment year 2006-07.
2. The grounds raised in these Appeals are similar and common, hence, we are only reproducing the grounds in respect of assessment year 2006-07 as under:-
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
