Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2013 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (5) TMI 610 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- The issue is concluded in favour of the assessee inasmuch as, as held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg Co Ltd VS DCIT (2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT), rule 8 D is not retrospective in nature and would only apply from the assessment year 2008-09 onwards. That is precisely what the Commissioner (Appeals) has held, thereby, rejected AO's reliance on rule 8 D in computing disallowance u/s 14A. Therefore no need to disturb the well reasoned findings of the CIT(A). In favour of assessee. Disallowance of depreciation on "non compete territory rights" - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- The disallowance of depreciation thus seems to have reached finality. The law is fairlv well settled that once AO accepts a particular position by not challenging the same in further appeal, it cannot be open to him to disturb the position having so reached finality, by appeal in another year. No doubt there is no res judicata in income tax proceedings but principles of consistency do play an important role in all walks of life as much as in the income tax proceedings. See Parashuram Pottery Works Ltd Vs ITO (1976 (11) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court). As there is not even a whisper of the reason for coming to the conclusion, on merits, as to why the depreciation on the intangible assets in question has been declined, thus approve the conclusion arrived at by the CIT(A) and decline to interfere in the matter. In favour of assessee.
|