Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (10) TMI 603 - AT - Income TaxDepreciation on license fee paid for 20 years - intangible asset - treating the license fee paid to Indian Railways as deferred revenue expenditure eligible for amortization over a period of 20 years but not being eligible for depreciation - HELD THAT:- Following the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, in the case of Container Corporation of India Ltd. [2017 (1) TMI 1586 - ITAT DELHI] this Tribunal noted that in this case, the assessee had earned a benefit of enduring nature of plying on Indian Railways Tracks for a period of 20 years which was a valuable commercial right available to the assessee for a considerable period of time and, therefore, the same was eligible for depreciation u/s 32(1) (ii) of the Act. During the course of proceedings before us in the present appeal, the Department could not bring to our notice any judgment contrary to the above said adjudication and in favour of the Revenue on the issue. Therefore, respectfully following the judgment of Areva T&D vs. DCIT [2012 (4) TMI 79 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and also the order of the Tribunal in the case of Container Corporation of India (supra), we allow Ground of the assessee’s and direct that benefit of depreciation on the registration fee of ₹ 50 Crores paid to Indian Railways be allowed the benefit of depreciation. Disallowance on account of claim against Contractors/Third Parties - CIT-A allowed relief to assessee - HELD THAT:- CIT (A) has noted that the assessee’s submission is tenable in as much as it has not accounted for the claim against Contractors/Third Parties pending its realization due to inherent uncertainty in the ultimate realization of the said amount.CIT (A) has also noted that the assessee has been consistently following Accounting Standard-9 dealing with Revenue Recognition issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountant of India. In the proceedings before us, the Ld. SR. DR could not bring to our notice any perversity in the said order of the CIT (A). We also note that a similar issue had been decided in favour of the assessee by the CIT (A) in Assessment Years 2003-04 and 2004-05 which have been accepted by the Department. Therefore, in such a situation, following the principle of consistency, we find no reason to deviate from the findings of the Ld. CIT(A)
|