Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (11) TMI 8 - AT - Income TaxNature of expenditure - treat “non-compete fees” as deferred revenue expenditure - HELD THAT:- We notice that the Tribunal has accepted the payment of noncompete fee as an intangible asset in AY 2011-12, by following the decision rendered by the jurisdictional Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Piramal Glass Ltd [2019 (6) TMI 891 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] Accordingly, the Tribunal has held that the assessee is eligible for depreciation u/s 32 of the Act on Non-compete fees paid, being an intangible asset. When the original claim is allowed, as rightly pointed out by Ld A.R, there is no necessity to render decision on the alternative claim of allowing the non-compete fee as deferred revenue expenditure. We allow the cross objections filed by the assessee in all the three years under consideration and hold that the assessee is eligible for depreciation on non-compete fee, as the same would fall under the category of intangible asset. We order accordingly. Hence the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A) in all the three years are reversed. Even though the decision rendered by the Ld CIT(A) has been reversed, since the cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed, the appeals filed by the revenue are also liable to be rejected as infructuous. Treatment of foreign exchange loss arising on account of revaluation of amount payable in respect of acquisition of business from M/s Pirmal Health care Ltd. - assessee has challenged the decision of Ld CIT(A) on the ground that the enhanced depreciation should have been allowed under the principle of consistency - HELD THAT:- We are unable to understand as to how the assessee could press upon the Principle of Consistency, when it has not accepted the decision taken by AO in AY 2011-12 [2020 (3) TMI 416 - ITAT MUMBAI] We notice that both the AO and the assessee has taken stands to suit their convenience in each of the years. Be that as it may, we notice that this issue has been examined by the co-ordinate bench in AY 2011-12 and this issue has been restored back to the file of Ld CIT(A) as held that CIT(A) has not considered all aspect of the reasoning given by the Assessing Officer for making the addition, we deem it appropriate to remit this issue to the file of learned CIT(A) to consider them afresh and pass a speaking order on this issue.
|