Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 1628 - AT - Income TaxAddition of foreign travel expenses, trade mark expenses and disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) for sales promotion expenses - Held that:- Respectfully following the decision of Co-ordinate Bench for Asst. Year 2009-10 [2016 (5) TMI 530 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] in assessee’s own case, we find that ground nos.1,3 & 4 raised by the Revenue are liable to be dismissed as they also relate to foreign travel expenses, trade mark expenses and disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act for sales promotion expenses. Further Revenue is unable to rebut the contentions of ld. AR and to differentiate the facts of the year under appeal with those for Asst. Year 2009-10. Thus we find no reason to interfere with the order of ld. CIT(A) and dismiss these three grounds. Disallowance on account of depreciation on non-compete fees - Held that:- We find that both the views i.e. allowing/disallowing exist as regards the issue of claiming of depreciation on non-compete fees. However, in the given facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the consistency of allowability of depreciation on non-compete fees in the case of assessee for Asst. Year 2007-08, 2008-09 and for Asst. Year 2009- 10 decided by the Co-ordinate Bench pronounced in the year 2016, we are of the view that assessee’s claim of depreciation on noncompete fees has rightly been allowed by ld. CIT(A). We therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order of ld. CIT(A) and we uphold the same. This ground of Revenue is dismissed. Addition on account of prior period expenses - CIT-A deleted the addition - Held that:- There is no dispute to the fact that an amount of ₹ 11,236/- was paid to Central Depository Services Ltd. towards Custodial fees pertaining to the period F.Y.2008-09. However, as submitted by ld. AR that the Custodial fees is legitimate business expenditure and there is no dispute to it being a revenue in nature. We are, therefore, of the view that liability of the assessee of ₹ 11,236/- being Custodial fees crystallized during the F.Y.2009-10 and the same should not be treated as prior period expenditure as there is no postponement of liability. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the finding of ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, this ground of Revenue is dismissed. Depreciation on Goodwill arising on Amalgamation - claimed never in the Return of Income filed by the Assessee - Held that:- respectfully following the judgment of Hon. Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Smiffs Securities Ltd. (2012 (8) TMI 713 - SUPREME COUR ), and CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders (2012 (7) TMI 158 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ) we are of the view that ld. CIT(A) has rightly allowed the justifiable & correct claim of depreciation on ‘goodwill’ made by the assessee through revised computation of income without filing revised return of income during the course of assessment proceedings. Therefore, no interference is called for in the order of ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Revenue appeal dismissed.
|