Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (5) TMI 1295 - AT - Income TaxDepreciation claim as the difference between Assets acquired and Liabilities taken over represents intangible assets as contemplated under clause (ii) of section 32(1)- Held that:- As relying on assessee's own case in the immediately preceding 2 assessment years held that the acquisition of rights over the assets of the transferor, inclusive of its customers base was held to be an ‘intangible asset’ being ‘business or commercial rights of similar nature’ contemplated in section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and was held eligible for depreciation. Following the aforesaid discussion, in the present case, the business advantages detailed earlier, are liable to be considered as an intangible asset, being ‘business or commercial rights of similar nature’ contemplated u/s 32(1)(ii) of the Act. In our considered opinion, the plea of the assessee for allowance of depreciation in terms of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act cannot be faulted either in law or on facts. - Decided in favour of assessee Loss on valuation of securities as held as stock in trade - Held that:- Merely because the Securities are kept under the head till the maturity, the said Security cannot be treated as a purely investment. Law is well settled that the Securities held by the Bank are in the nature of Stock-in-Trade. We may like to quote here the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT Vs. Nedungadi Bank Ltd. [2002 (11) TMI 29 - KERALA High Court] wherein held that the securities held by the Bank are in the nature of stock-in-trade. Both the authorities below has merely gone on the nomenclature of the head under which the Securities are held. In our considered view, nomenclature cannot be decisive for the assessee Bank. We, therefore, hold that the loss on the sale of the Securities is revenue in nature and same is allowable - Decided in favour of assessee Applicability of Sec 43D to the appellant bank - Held that:- The above ground has been decided against the assessee by the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case. In view of the above submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee the above ground is dismissed. - Decided against assessee Disallowance of the payment made to Cosmos Foundation u/s 40 A(2)(b) - Held that:- Provisions of section 40A(2)(b) are not applicable since the assessee is a charitable trust and not an association of persons within the meaning of section 40A(2).- Decided in favour of assessee
|