DCIT, Bangalore v. M/s Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd.,, Bangalore

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K. JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.249 & 250/BANG/2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2000-01 & 2005-06 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU BANGALORE. : APPELLANT VS. M/S. HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY COMPAQ COMPUTERS INDIA P. LTD.) NO.24 SALAPURIA ARENA HOSUR MAIN ROAD ADUGODI BANGALORE 560 030. : RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SMT. SWATHI S. PATIL CIT-II(DR) RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.P. KUMAR ADVOCATE ITA NO.245 & 250/B/10 PAGE 2 OF 10 O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THESE TWO APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDERS OF THE CIT (A)-LTU BANGALORE IN ITA NO: 14/DC (LTU)/CIT( A)-LTU/08-09 & IN ITA NO: 19 /DC (LTU)/CIT(A)-LTU/08-09 DATED: 13.11.2009 FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01 AND 2005-06 RESPECTIVELY IN THE CASE OF HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES PRIVATE LIMITED BANGALORE. 2. THE REVENUE HAD RAISED TWELVE IDENTICAL GROUNDS FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CHALLENGE IN WHICH GROUND NOS: 1 11 AND 12 BEING GENERAL IN NATURE AND NO SPECIFIC ISSUES INVOLVED THEY HAVE BEEN TREATED AS NON- CONSEQUENTIAL. IN THE REMAINING GROUNDS THE SUBST ANCE AND CRUX OF THE ISSUE WAS THAT THAT THE CIT (A)-LTU ERRED IN ALLOWING OF DEPRECIAT ION ON INTANGIBLE ASSETS . 3. AS THE ISSUES RAISED IN THESE APPEALS BEING IDEN TICAL AND COMMON BOTH THE APPEALS WERE HEARD CONSIDERED AND DISPOSED OFF FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE IN THIS COMMON ORDER. A.Y. 2000-01: 4. BRIEFLY STATED THE ASSESSEE COMPANY [THE ASSESS EE IN SHORT] ACQUIRED COMPAQ COMPUTERS (INDIA) LTD. AS A GOING CONCERN [ WHICH HAD EARLIER ACQUIRED DIGITAL EQUIPMENT (INDIA) LIMITED] BY PAYING A LUMP SUM CONSIDERATION OF RS.83 CRORES INITIALLY AND RS.83.99 CRORES SUBSEQUENTLY OUT OF WHICH A SUM OF ITA NO.245 & 250/B/10 PAGE 3 OF 10 RS.42.02 CRORES REPRESENTED THE VALUE OF FIXED ASSE TS AND THE REMAINING RS.41.96 CRORES REPRESENTED THE VALUE OF INTANGIBLE ASSETS. THIS ISSUE HAD COME UP FOR CONSIDERATION DURING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE AY UNDER DISPUTE. THE ASSESSEE HAD VALUED THE GOODWILL OUT OF INTANGIBLE ASSETS AT RS.5.68 CRORES AND THUS A SUM OF RS.36.29 CRORES WAS FIXED AS THE VALUE OF INTANGIBLE ASSETS. FOR HAVIN G FAILED TO CLINCH ITS CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION IN ITS FAVOUR EITHER WITH THE ASSESSIN G AUTHORITY OR WITH THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY THE ASSESSEE HAD CHANGED ITS T RACK AND PUT UP A VALIANT CLAIM BEFORE THE EARLIER BENCH FOR ALLOWING THE SAM E AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE PERHAPS SEEKING SHELTER IN THE RULING OF THE HON BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF EMPIRE JUTE CO. LTD. V. CIT (124 ITR 1(SC)]. 4.1. WHILE DECIDING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL WITH REG ARD TO THE ENTITLEMENT OF DEPRECIATION ON THE PART OF THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF A BUSINESS WHICH REPRESENTED THE VALUE OF INTANGIBLE ASSETS OF SUCH ACQUIRED BUS INESS THE EARLIER BENCH [IN ITA NO: 576/B/2004 DT: 18.1.2005 & IN MP NOS.59 & 63/BA NG/05 DT: 27.7.2005] HAD REMITTED BACK THE ISSUE ON THE FILE OF THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO CONSIDER THE ASSESSEES CLAIM IN THE LIGHT OF THE RULING OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF EMPIRE JUTE CO. LTD. V. CIT (124 ITR 1 (SC) ]. 4.2. FOR THE APPRECIATION OF FACTS WE REPRODUCE TH E OPERATIONAL PORTION OF THE DIRECTION OF THE BENCH IN ITS SUBSEQUENT ORDERS DT :27.7.2005: 4.2. IN RESPECT OF DEPRECIATION WE HOLD THAT THE AO SHALL EXAMINE FIRSTLY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS PAYMENT OF RS.36.29 C RORES AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. IF THE SAME IS HELD TO BE SO CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION FAILS. HOWEVER IF IT IS HELD THAT THE AMOUNT PAID IS CAPITAL IN NATURE THE AO SHALL ALSO EXAMINE WHETHER ANY ITA NO.245 & 250/B/10 PAGE 4 OF 10 DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE ON SUCH PAYMENT OF RS.36. 29 CRORES. THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AS CONTAINED IN PARA 5.3. IS MODIFIED TO T HE ABOVE EXTENT. 4.3. WHILE CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM AS DIR ECTED BY THE BENCH THE AO HAD AFTER DELIBERATING THE ISSUE IN AN EXHA USTIVE AND ILLUSTRATIVE MANNER COUPLED WITH VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS ON THE ISSUE AND ALSO FOR THE REASONS RECORDED IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER DATED: 19.9 .2008 HELD THAT 4.8. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO DEPRECIATION ON THE AMOUNT OF RS.36.29 CRORES BEING THE VALUE ATTRIBUTED TO THE INTANGIBLE ASSETS OTHER THAN GOODWILL. 5. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE TOOK UP THE ISSUE WITH T HE CIT (A)-LTU FOR RELIEF. AFTER DULY ANALYZING (I) THE LENGTHY CONTENTIONS PU T FORTH BY THE ASSESSEE CLAIMING THAT IT WAS A REVENUE EXPENDITURE DEPRECIATION ON INTANGIBLE ASSETS ETC. (II) PERUSING THE REASONING OF THE AO IN TURNING DOWN TH E ASSESSEES REQUEST AND (III) EXTENSIVELY QUOTING THE FINDING OF THE HONBLE TRIB UNAL ON AN IDENTICAL ISSUE IN THE CASE OF BOSCH LTD. V. CIT (LTU) IN ITA NO:329/BANG/2009 DAT ED: 31.8.2009 THE LD. CIT (A)-LTU HAD OBSERVED THUS 3.7.(I) A PERUSAL OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 27.4.19 99 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE APPELLANT COMPANY AND M/S.DIGITAL EQUIPMENT (INDIA) LTD. SHOWS THAT THE APPELLANT HAD PAID RS.83 CRORES WHICH WAS SUBSEQUEN TLY REVISED TO RS.83.99 CRORES FOR ACQUIRING THE BUSINESS AS A GOING CONCER N ON LOCK STOCK AND BARREL BASIS TOGETHER WITH GOODWILL. FURTHER THE SABVE CO NSIDERATION WAS IN RESPECT OF BOTH TANGIBLE AND INTANGIBLE ASSETS OF RS.42 02 25 072/- AND RS.41 97 00 000/- RESPECTIVELY. THE APPELLANT ALSO FURNISHED COPY OF VALUATION CERTIFICATE BY A CERTIFIED VALUER TO THAT EFFECT. THE INTANGIBLE AS SETS ACQUIRED BY HPISPL CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF PATENTS KNOW-HOW DISTRI BUTION RIGHTS ETC. THE VALUE WAS ARRIVED AT BY THE VALUER AT RS.41.97 CRORES. ACCOR DINGLY THE APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT SUCH INTANGIBLE ASSETS WERE ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRE CIATION U/S 32(1)(III) OF THE ACT. THE FACTS OF THE CASE RELIED UPON CITED SUPRA ARE A PPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE. ITA NO.245 & 250/B/10 PAGE 5 OF 10 3.8.IT IS HELD THAT THE APPELLANT IS ENTITL ED TO DEPRECIATION ON THE PAYMENT OF RS.36.29 CRORES 6. AGITATED THE REVENUE IN ITS PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US ARGUED THAT - THE LD. CIT (A) HAD FAILED TO EXAMINE THE FACTS OF THE CASE WHICH WERE BROUGHT OUT IN THE ORDERING GIVING EFFECT TO THE DI RECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL; - DEPRECIATION CAN BE ALLOWED ONLY SUCH INTANGIBLE AS SET THAT WAS SPECIFIED IN S.32 AND NOT ON ANY OTHER ASSET; - THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT ACQUIRED ANY ASSET LIKE TRADEM ARK PATENT ETC. SPECIFIED IN S.32(1)(II) OF THE ACT; - THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO IDENTIFY THE DEPRECIABLE ASSET EXCEPT LOOSELY CALLING THEM AS INTANGIBLE ASSETS AND TO SOW THE AC TUAL COST OF SUCH ASSETS; THAT THE VALUE ATTRIBUTED TO THE INTANGIBLE ASSETS WAS ONLY ON AN AD-HOC OR ESTIMATE BASIS; - THAT AS PER S.43(1) DEPRECIATION HAS TO BE ALLOWED ON THE ACTUAL COST AND NOT ON THE ESTIMATED VALUE OF THE ASSET; - THAT THE INTANGIBLE ASSET ON WHICH NOW DEPRECIATION HAS TO BE ALLOWED INCLUDE NON-DEPRECIABLE ASSETS LIKE THE LEASEHOLD R IGHTS TO OCCUPY OFFICE SPACE; - RELIES ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HI GH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MANGALORE GANESH BEEDI WORKS 266 ITR 142 (K AR) 6.1. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. A R HAD REITERATED MORE OR LESS WHAT WAS PORTRAYED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. TO BUTTRESS HIS ARGUMENT AND ALSO TO DRIVE HOME HIS POINT THE LD. A R HAD PLACED STR ONG RELIANCE ON THE FINDING OF THE JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF BOSCH LI MITED V. CIT (LTU) AND PRONOUNCEMENTS OF VARIOUS JUDICIARIES ON A SIMILAR ISSUE. 7. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS M ETICULOUSLY PERUSED THE RELEVANT RECORDS AND ALSO THE CASE LAWS ON WHICH TH E LD. A R HAD PLACED HIS STRONG FAITH. ITA NO.245 & 250/B/10 PAGE 6 OF 10 7.1. AT THE OUT SET WE WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THA T IN AN IDENTICAL ISSUE - CONFRONTING US NOW FOR ADJUDICATION HAD CROPPED U P BEFORE THE EARLIER BENCH IN THE CASE OF BOSCH LIMITED CITED SUPRA WHEREIN THE H ONBLE BENCH AFTER EXHAUSTIVELY DELIBERATING THE ISSUE AND ALSO TAKING CUE FROM THE FINDING OF THE HONBLE MUMBAI BENCH (ITAT) IN THE CASE OF SKYLINE CATERERS PVT. LTD. V. ITO (2008) 20 SOT 266 (MUM.) (SMC) HAD OBSERVED THUS 6.6. THE FINDING OF THE HONBLE ITAT MUMBAI BEN CH SMC REFERRED SUPRA IS DIRECTLY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE ON HAN D. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISION WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE AS SESSEE COMPANY IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEPRECIATION ON BUSINESS INFORMATION AMOUNT ING TO RS.1.38 CRORES UNDER THE CATEGORY OF OTHER IDENTIFIABLE INTANGIBLES (GO ODWILL) WHICH HAS BEEN RIGHTLY CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 7.2. FOR APPRECIATION OF FACTS AND FOR CLARITY WE ARE OBLIGED TO EXTRACT THE FINDING OF THE HONBLE MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF SKYLINE CATERERS (P) LTD. V. ITO AS UNDER: THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING CATERING HOUSE- KEEPING AND ALLIED SERVICES TO A COMPANY HLL. SUCH CATERING BUSINESS WAS EARLIER CARRIED ON BY ONE R UNDER A CATERING CONT RACT WITH HLL FOR THE LAST 30 YEARS. THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH R FOR TAKING OVER THE CATERING CONTRACT OF R WITH HLL AGAINST A CONSIDE RATION OF RS.27 LAKHS. OUT OF THE SAID SUM THE ASSESSEE PAID A SUM OF RS.25 LAKH S TO R AS A CONSIDERATION FOR ACQUIRING ALL THE RIGHTS UNDER THE CATERING CONTRAC T BETWEEN R AND HLL AND BALANCE SUM OF RS.2 LAKHS WAS PAID TO R FOR NOT C OMPETING WITH THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE REFLECTED THE SAID AMOUNT IN ITS BALAN CE SHEET AS GOODWILL AND CLAIMED DEPRECIATION THEREON TREATING THE SAME AS I NTANGIBLE ASSETS AS WELL COMMERCIAL RIGHTS ACQUIRED BY IT. THE AO HELD THAT THE GOODWILL DID NOT FIND PLACE IN S.32 AS PART OF INTANGIBLE ASSETS WHICH INCLUDED ONLY KNOW-HOW PATENTS COPYRIGHTS TRADE MARKS ETC. HE FURTHER HELD THAT T HE EXPRESSION SIMILAR NATURE IN S.32(1)(II) WOULD NOT INCLUDE THE GOODWILL. THUS D EPRECIATION WAS DISALLOWED. ON APPEAL THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE AO O N THE GROUND THAT THE ENTIRE PAYMENT OF RS.27 LAKHS WAS PAID TO R FOR NOT COMP ETING WITH THE ASSESSEE WHICH AMOUNTED TO CAPITAL EXPENDITURE NOT COVERED BY S.32 (1)(II). ITA NO.245 & 250/B/10 PAGE 7 OF 10 ON SECOND APPEAL IT WAS HELD THAT - A COMBINED READING OF THE AGREEMENT DT.16/8/00 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND R REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID THE SUM OF RS.25 LAKHS FOR ACQUIRING ALL T HE RIGHTS UNDER THE CATERING CONTRACT BETWEEN R AND HLL AS WELL AS CERTAIN ASS ETS BELONGING TO R. ON THE OTHER HAND RS.2 LAKHS HAD BEEN PAID ON THE GROUND THAT R WOULD NOT COMPETE WITH THE ASSESSEE IN ANY BUSINESS OF CATERING AT HL L CANTEEN. THEREFORE CIT (A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE ENTIRE RS.27 LAKHS WAS PAID TO R FOR NOT COMPETING WITH THE ASSESSEE. RS.25 LAKHS WAS MADE FOR ACQUIRING ALL THE RIGHTS UNDER THE CATERING CONTRACT BETWEEN R AND HLL AND FOR ACQUIRING ARTICLES AND PARAPHERNALIA BELONGING TO R WHICH WERE LYING IN THE CANTEEN. SINCE THE PAYMENT RELATED TO THE ACQUISITION OF RIGHTS UNDER THE CONTRACT IT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT PAYMENT WAS EITHER ON ACCOUNT OF GOODWILL OR O N ACCOUNT OF NOT TO COMPETE WITH THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER MERELY BECAUSE THE ASS ESSEE SHOWED THE SAID PAYMENT ON ACCOUNT OF GOODWILL IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT NO ADVERSE INFERENCE COULD BE DRAWN AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. A PERUSAL OF THE PROVISIONS OF S.32(1)(II) SHOWS TH AT THE LEGISLATURE HAS SPECIFIED CERTAIN INTANGIBLE ASSETS ON WHICH DEPRECIATION CAN BE CLAIMED NAMELY KNOW- HOW PATENTS COPYRIGHTS TRADEMARKS LICENCES FRA NCHISES. THESE SPECIFIC INTANGIBLE ASSETS ARE FOLLOWED BY THE EXPRESSION A NY OTHER BUSINESS OF COMMERCIAL RIGHTS OF SIMILAR NATURE. IN SUCH A SITUATION THE RULE OF EJUSDEM GENERIS WOULD APPLY. THE SCOPE OF THE RULE IS THAT WORDS OF A GE NERAL NATURE FOLLOWING SPECIFIC AND PARTICULAR WORDS SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS LIMITED TO THINGS WHICH ARE OF THE SAME NATURE AS THOSE SPECIFIED. THE GENERAL WORDS TAKE THE COLOUR FROM THE SPECIFIC WORDS. THE SPECIFIC WORDS IN THE ABOVE SEC TION REVEAL THE SIMILARITY IN THE SENSE THAT ALL THE INTANGIBLE ASSETS SPECIFIED ARE TOOLS OF THE TRADE WHICH FACILITATE THE ASSESSEE CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS. THEREFORE THE EXPRESSION ANY OTHER BUSINESS OR COMMERCIAL RIGHTS OF SIMILAR NATURE WO ULD INCLUDE SUCH RIGHTS WHICH CAN BE USED AS A TOOL TO CARRY ON THE BUSINESS. IF THIS TEST WAS TO BE APPLIED THEN THE RIGHTS ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE CATER ING CONTRACT BETWEEN R AND HLL WOULD FALL WITHIN THE EXPRESSION MENTIONED ABOV E. FURTHER SINCE CATERING BUSINESS AT HLL CANTEEN COULD BE CARRIED ON ONLY WI TH THE HELP OF SUCH RIGHTS UNDER THE CONTRACT THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO DEPRECIATION. 7.3. FURTHER IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN COCOA COLA B EVERAGES PVT. LTD. V. DCIT REPORTED IN 2009-TIOL-650-ITAT-DEL THE HONBLE ITA T DELHI C BENCH HAS HELD THAT GOODWILL IS NOT SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED FROM THE INTA NGIBLE ASSETS ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIATION. EVEN IF AN ASSET IS DESCRIBED AS GOO DWILL BUT IT FITS IN THE DESCRIPTION ITA NO.245 & 250/B/10 PAGE 8 OF 10 OF SECTION 32(1)(II) DEPRECIATION IS TO BE GRANTED ON THE SAME. THE TRUE BASIS OF DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE IS THE CHARACTER OF THE ASSE T AND NOT ITS DESCRIPTION. 7.4. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED WITH RESPECTS THE RULING OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MANGALORE GANESH B EEDI WORKS REPORTED IN 264 ITR 142 ON WHICH THE REVENUE HAS PLACED ITS FAITH. WITH DUE RESPECTS WE WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THE CASE LAW RELIED ON BY THE REVENUE IS CLEARLY DISTINGUISHABLE IN THE SENSE THAT - THE HONBLE COURT MADE A FINDING THAT THE BUYER DID NOT HAVE ANY OF INTANGIBLE ASSETS OF THE NATURE AS FINDING A PLACE IN S.35AB O F THE ACT; THAT THE ONLY INTANGIBLE ASSET OF THE SELLER WAS GOODWILL; THAT ( AS RIGHTLY OBSERVED BY THE HONBLE COURT) THE PURCHASER WAS TRYING TO BIFURCAT E SUCH GOODWILL INTO INTANGIBLES OF THE NATURE AS MENTIONED IN S.34AB OF THE ACT; AND THAT THE VALUER HAD NOT GIVEN COGENT REASONS FOR ARRIVING AT THE VA LUE OF THE INTANGIBLES . 8. IN AN OVERALL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIR CUMSTANCES OF THE MATTER AS DELIBERATED UPON IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS AND A LSO IN CONFORMITY WITH THE FINDING OF THE EARLIER BENCH IN THE CASE OF BOSCH L TD. CITED SUPRA AND MORE SO THE FINDING OF MUMBAI BENCH OF HONBLE ITAT IN THE CASE OF SKYLINE CATERERS (P ) LTD V. ITO REFERRED ABOVE WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIE W THAT THE LD. CIT (A)-LTU WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING A STAND THAT THE ASS ESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIATION U/S 32(1)(II) OF THE ACT ON THE INTANG IBLE ASSETS. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. A.Y.2005-06: 9. FOR THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR ALSO THE AO TOOK A VIE W THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO MAKE INDIVIDUAL IDENTIFICATION OF SUC H ASSETS HE DISALLOWED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEPRECIATION OF RS.2.15 CRORES ON THE INTANGIBLE ASSETS ITA NO.245 & 250/B/10 PAGE 9 OF 10 KEEPING IN VIEW HIS STAND FOR THE AY 2000-01 WHEREI N HE HAD DISALLOWED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEPRECIATION ON INTANGIBLE ASS ETS WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE TRIBUNALS ORDER CITED SUPRA. 10. WHEN THE ASSESSEE TOOK UP THIS ISSUE WITH THE L D. CIT (A) FOR RELIEF THE CIT (A)S BRIEF OBSERVATION WAS THAT 3.6. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE APPELLANTS SU BMISSIONS. IN THE APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY ME IN ITA NO.14/DC(LTU)/CIT(A)LTU/0 8-09 DATED: 13.11.2009 IN THE CASE OF THE SAME APPELLANT FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 32000-01 I HAVE HELD THAT THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO DEPRECIATION ON I NTANGIBLE ASSETS FOR DETAILED REASONS GIVEN THEREIN. FOR THE SAME REASONS I HOL D THAT THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO DEPRECIATION OF RS.2 15 29 468/- U/S 32(1)(III) OF THE ACT ON THE INTANGIBLE ASSETS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 ALSO. 11. BEFORE US IT WAS CLAIMED BY THE REVENUE THAT T HE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN ALLOWING DEPRECIATION ON INTANGIBLE ASSETS FOR THIS AY AS WELL. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE SUBMISSIONS MADE FOR THE AY 2000 -01 HOLD GOOD FOR THIS AY TOO. 12. AT THE OUTSET WE WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT AS THE ISSUE RAISED FOR THIS AY IS IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE ISSUE RAISED FOR THE AY 2000-01 WHEREIN FOR THE DETAILED REASONS RECORDED SUPRA WE HAVE UPHELD THE STAND OF THE LD. CIT (A). AS SUCH OUR FINDINGS HANDED DOWN FOR THE AY 2000-01 HOLD GO OD FOR THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR TOO AS THE ISSUE IS SIMILAR. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDI NGLY. 13. IN THE RESULT THE REVENUES APPEALS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01 AND 2005-06 ARE DISMISSED. ITA NO.245 & 250/B/10 PAGE 10 OF 10 PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 25 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2011. SD/- SD/- ( GEORGE GEORGE K. ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE DATED THE 25 TH FEBRUARY 2011. DS/- COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. C IT(A) 5. DR ITAT BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT BANGALORE.