Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (6) TMI 65 - ITAT DELHIDis-allowance of franchise fee - Dis-allowance of excess depreciation on computer peripherals - Accrual of royalty income - Held that:- We find that in revenue's appeal, ground No.1 relates to the issue of franchise fee which the A.O. had held to be capital in nature. However, Ld. CIT(A) had allowed it as revenue expenditure following its own order in Assessment Year 2008-09. We find that similar issue arose in Assessment Year 2003-04, wherein Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide its order [2014 (8) TMI 353 - DELHI HIGH COURT] dated 01.08.2014 has decided the issue in favour of assessee. Similar view was also expressed by the Delhi High Court in Salora International Ltd. [2008 (8) TMI 138 - DELHI HIGH COURT].We have also examined the order passed by the Assessing Officer. Other than relying upon the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Southern Switchgear Ltd. [1983 (3) TMI 18 - MADRAS High Court], there is no discussion relating to the factual matrix to justify his conclusion that 25% of the franchise fee should be treated as capital expenditure. No facts were highlighted and stated to justify the conclusion. In view of the aforesaid reasoning, we are not inclined to issue notice on the first question/issue raised by the appellant Revenue. - Decided against the revenue. Dis-allowance of excess depreciation on computer peripherals - We find that similar issue in the case of assessee was decided by Tribunal [2014 (10) TMI 657 - ITAT DELHI] for Assessment Year 2008-09, in favour of assessee. The facts in the present appeal remains the same, therefore, respectfully following the Tribunal order, Ground NO.2 is also dismissed. - Decided against the revenue. Accrual / Addition of royalty income - This issue has also been decided by ITAT in the case [2014 (10) TMI 657 - ITAT DELHI] of assessee itself in Assessment Year 2007-08, 2008-09.The facts relating to this issue are that during assessment proceedings the A.O. observed that an amount of ₹ 9,59,881/- was not recognized as income by the assessee. The A.O. held that the said income had accrued to the assessee, therefore, he made addition thereof. The Hon'ble Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 4626 in the case of assessee itself vide its order dated 17.10.2014 has decided similar issue against the assessee. We find that the issue is similar in the present case. Following the above tribunal order in the case of assessee itself we dismiss this ground of appeal of assessee. - Decided against the assessee.
|