Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 1921 - AT - Income TaxDepreciation relating to Intangible Assets - depreciation on trademarks and licences - HELD THAT:- The issue involved in this appeal is whether the depreciation claimed by the assessee is eligible or not. The very same issue in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2008-09 [2013 (2) TMI 716 - ITAT CHENNAI] came before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of the assessee. Service charges paid to UBL and IIL were revenue in nature and capitalization of service charges - service charges paid to UBL and IIL is eligible or not? - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal in assessee’s own case has considered this issue and decided in favour of the assessee as concluded that verification of a transaction with the group company is at arm’s length and is not a statutory requirement u/s 40A(2) of the Act. It was argued that as per the provisions of section 40A(2) what is required of the Assessing Officer is to form an opinion that an expenditure is not excessive or unreasonable. The discretion to decide this issue is vested with the Assessing Officer and he has exercised the same in favour of the assessee. Thus, it cannot be said that an error has crept into the assessment order causing prejudice to the Revenue. Disallowance of payment towards fees and technical advisory and management fees - Whether technical advisory and management fees paid to UBL is for the purpose of business or not ? - HELD THAT:- Respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate Bench in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2008-09 [2013 (2) TMI 716 - ITAT CHENNAI] held it be allowable, since expenditure incurred was for making the business which continued after closure of an unit, viable. In our opinion, this case will only support the case of the assessee hereand in the Revenue could not file any higher Court’s decision to take a different view, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) and the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed.
|