Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (7) TMI 1318 - AT - Income TaxApportionment of royalty expenditure - CIT(A) has erred in allowing 25% of royalty payment as capital expenditure and the balance 75% as revenue expenditure - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2011 (2) TMI 1417 - ITAT CHENNAI] the facts of the case in hand and point at issue decided by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Southern Switchgears Ltd. as affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court [1997 (12) TMI 105 - SC ORDER] and the ld. CIT(A) has followed such decision to give part relief to the assessee and no distinguishing feature has been pointed by the ld. DR in this regard. Allowance of additional depreciation - assessee entitlement to carry forward 50% of additional depreciation in the succeeding year when the plant and machinery was put in use less than 180 days in the preceding previous year - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has rightly followed the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Lakshmi Technology and Engineering Industries Ltd. v. DCIT [2016 (6) TMI 44 - ITAT CHENNAI] wherein as held the assessee is entitled to claim 50% of additional depreciation in the succeeding year when the plant and machinery was put in use for less than 180 days in the preceding previous year and directed the Assessing Officer to allow the additional depreciation as claimed by the assessee. Hence, the ground raised by the Revenue for both the assessment years is dismissed. Disallowance of the marketing service fees paid to India Piston Limited - HELD THAT:- Similar facts in an identical issue in assessee’s own case for the assessment years 1999-2000, 2003-04 to 2005-06 [2011 (2) TMI 1417 - ITAT CHENNAI] as held IP Rings Ltd. does not have any market set up in its own and when specifically pointed out that there is already clause in the agreement for payment technical consultancy fee payable at 5%, the assessee’s counsel asserted further that there was a dire need for such expenditure and it has been used for launching of the new product without which the assessee could not appropriately market the new product. But, when asked to supply certain data in details about judgment and other details, the assessee was unable to do so. We are inclined to concur with the conclusion as drawn by the ld. CIT(A), who is found to have considered each and every aspect of the issue before arriving at the conclusion drawn by him when no contrary material has been provided by the assessee in this regard and dismiss this ground of appeal
|