Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (8) TMI 1368 - ITAT MUMBAIDisallowance of depreciation claimed on Non-compete Fee - Whether it does not represent any intangible asset qualified for the depreciation as per Section 32? - HELD THAT:- Hon’ble High Court referring to then decision rendered in the case of PCIT vs. Ferromattice Milacron India (P.) Limited [2018 (10) TMI 1955 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] decided the issue in favour of assessee. Thus, the assessee was held to be eligible for claiming depreciation u/s. 32 on Non-compete Fee, an intangible asset. We find that in the impugned order the CIT(A) has allowed depreciation on Non-competent Fee by following the order of Tribunal in assessee's own case for Assessment Year 1999-2000, A.Y.2001-02, A.Y.2006-07 and for A.Y. 2011-12 [2013 (5) TMI 302 - ITAT MUMBAI], [2016 (4) TMI 583 - ITAT MUMBAI], [2016 (10) TMI 1037 - ITAT MUMBAI], [2017 (4) TMI 862 - ITAT MUMBAI] respectively, we find no infirmity in the findings of CIT(A) on this issue. Hence, ground No.1 & 2 raised in the appeal by Revenue are dismissed. Disallowance of interest on borrowed funds u/s. 36(1)(iii) - CIT(A) has deleted the addition by following the order of Tribunal in assessee's own case - HELD THAT:- Facts in the impugned Assessment Year are identical to the facts in the aforesaid Assessment Years. Assessee further pointed that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in [2019 (6) TMI 891 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has also considered the issue of disallowance of interest on borrowed funds in the appeal by the Revenue and has dismissed the question of law on this point. The Revenue has not been able to controvert the findings of the CIT(A) or has been able to demonstrate that the facts in the Assessment Year under appeal are in any manner different from the facts in the Assessment Years, wherein this issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal. Hence, we see no reason to interfere with the findings of CIT(A) on this issue. The ground No.3 of the appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. Disallowance of interest on borrowed funds given to the sister concern and also disallowance of interest received from sister concern - HELD THAT:- We find that the CIT(A) has deleted the addition by following the order of Tribunal in assessee’s own case for Assessment Year 2001-02, A.Y.2005-06 to A.Y. 2009-10 and also the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in [2019 (6) TMI 891 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] No contrary material is available on record to suggest any difference in facts or legal position. We find no reason to disturb the findings of CIT(A) on this issue. Consequently, the same are upheld and grounds No.5 and 6 of the appeal are dismissed, sans-merit. Addition u/s. 41(1) of the Act in respect of sundry creditors exceeding more than three years - CIT(A) deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- As for the Assessment Year 2005-06, A.Y. 2007-08 to A.Y 2009-10 the addition u/s. 41(1) of the Act was deleted by CIT(A) in the orders for the respective Assessment Years. The Department never preferred an appeal against the orders of CIT(A) for the aforesaid Assessment Years. It clearly shows that the Revenue has accepted the findings of the First Appellate Authority. We find that the CIT(A) has deleted the addition u/s. 41(1) of the Act by following the orders of CIT(A) for the Assessment Years 2005-06, A.Y. 2007-08 to 2009-10. Facts being identical in the impugned Assessment Year we find no reason to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A) on this issue. Disallowance on deferred revenue expenditure - HELD THAT:- We find that the expenditure claimed by the assessee was on account of consultancy fees paid to ECS Ltd., AND consultancy fees paid to Accenture. The CIT(A) held that no new tangible or intangible asset has come into existence due to the aforesaid expenditure. The expenditure was incurred solely for the purpose of improvement in efficiency of various process employed by the assessee. The aforesaid findings of the CIT(A) are unrebutted. Hence, we find no reason to interfere with the same. Consequently, ground of the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed.
|