Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (5) TMI 1042 - AT - Income TaxDepreciation on non-compete fee and brand equity - whether they are not in the nature of intangible asset listed u/s.32 namely know-how, copy rights, patents? - Held that:- This issue is squarely covered by the order of Tribunal in assessee’s own case in earlier assessment years wherein held that the assessee is entitled for depreciation on non-competent fee and brad equity. - Decided in favour of assessee. Addition of notional interest income charged at the rate of 12% on the interest free lease deposit paid by the company - Held that:- The interest free deposit has been given to Smt. A.Radhika on account of business expediency and the Learned Assessing Officer cannot decide what the businessman can do for the purpose of business. He cannot decide on behalf of the assessee. Being so, we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld. Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(A) in deleting the disallowance of notional interest at ₹ 24 lakhs. Hence, this ground raised by the Revenue is rejected. Addition made towards provision for bad and doubtful debts - scope of rectification of mistake orders - Held that:- The assessee made a claim before the Learned Assessing Officer though revised computation of income as bad debt. This claim was allowed by the Learned Assessing Officer while framing the assessment u/s.143(3). Later, the AO took up the proceedings U/s.154 of the Act and disallowed the same and added it to the income of the assessee. Thus it cannot be said that there is a mistake apparent from record so as to rectify u/s.154 by the Assessing Officer. The claim of assessee as bad debt vide letter dated 04.10.2006 and the Assessing Officer has taken a conscious decision to allow as bad debt. Now, the issue which is very debatable, cannot be considered by the Learned Assessing Officer u/s.154 so as to disallow the claim of assessee. As in the present case, the Assessing Officer has examined as to whether the debt has, in fact, been written off, in the accounts of the assessee. This exercise has been undertaken by the Assessing Officer with regard to treatment of bad debt. Being so, we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld. Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(A) in deleting the addition towards bad debts - Decided in favour of assessee.
|