Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2015 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 22 - HC - Income TaxDisallowance @ 50% u/s 40A(2)(a) read with Section 37(1) - AO held that the payment made to the MM Mumbai @ ₹ 500 per hour was excessive and unreasonable - ITAT concluded that the payment to MM Mumbai at the said rate could not be said to be excessive and unreasonable and also found that none of the three situations contemplated by Section 40A (2) (a) of the Act was attracted - Held that:- ITAT has in fact returned a finding of fact after analyzing the material and sufficient details available on record. The Revenue has not been able to persuade the Court to hold that the said finding is perverse. Accordingly, the Court declines to frame a question of law as regards the said issue. - Decided against revenue. Addition of expenditure incurred towards payment of royalty to Metso Minerals (Australia) - AO held this to be of enduring benefit and treated it as capital expenditure nature while allowing depreciation @25% thereon denied by ITAT - Held that:- ITAT analyzed that there is no assignment of the intellectual property rights in terms of the agreements in favour of the Assessee. The licenses were granted on non-exclusive basis and for a limited period. The Assessee was not authorized to use or permit others to use such technology except as specifically permitted by the licensor. In these circumstances, the decision of the ITAT that the said expenditure could not be considered as a capital expenditure does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and is consistent with the settled legal position explained in CIT Vs. Ciba India Ltd. (1967 (12) TMI 3 - SUPREME Court ) - Decided against revenue. Dividend income - CIT (Appeals) reduced the disallowance by 50% and this has been concurred with by the ITAT - Held that:- In view of the concurrent findings of both the CIT (A) and the ITAT, the Court is satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of the case, no substantial question of law arises as regards this issue. - Decided against revenue.
|