Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 650 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of royalty payment - treat 25% of the royalty payment as capital expenditure and the balance 75% as revenue expenditure - HELD THAT:- Issue as to apportionment of the royalty paid by the assessee to M/s. Nippon Piston Ring Co. Ltd., has already been adjudicated by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal, in the assessee’s own case [2017 (7) TMI 1318 - ITAT CHENNAI] for the earlier assessment years and the Ld.CIT(A) has followed judicial discipline in following the decision of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the earlier assessment years, we find no reason to interfere in the order of the Ld.CIT(A). Additional depreciation carried forward from the earlier assessment year - action of the Ld.CIT(A) in allowing the balance of the additional depreciation carried forward from the earlier assessment year - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has followed the judicial discipline in following the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Brakes India Ltd [2017 (4) TMI 511 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] and it is also noticed that the issue is now squarely covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the assessee’s own case. In this circumstances, we find no reason to interfere in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the same stands upheld. Consequently, Ground Nos. 3.1 to 3.2 of Revenue’s appeal for the assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15 stands dismissed. In the result the appeals of the Revenue stands dismissed. Disallowance of the deduction U/s.35(2AB) - R&D facilities in the case of the assessee have been applied by the DSIR for the purpose of the Section 35(2AB) - HELD THAT:- Considering the fact that the AO has not considered the applicability of the provisions of Section 35(1)(iv), in respect of disallowance made by denying the benefit of the exemption U/s.35(2AB), the issue is restored to the file of the AO for re-adjudication in line with the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s. Tube Investments of India [2002 (9) TMI 45 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] Consequently Ground No.3 for both of the assessee’s appeal for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.
|