9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 70X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This is an application for condonation of delay of 229 days in re-filing the appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 229 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. Accordingly, application stands disposed of. ITA 844/2010 1. Present appeal has been filed under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity "Act 1961") challenging the order in Appeal No. 3171/Del/2007 date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al available on record and carefully going through the orders of tax authorities below, we are of the view that since the findings of CIT(A), wherein he observed that "From the terms of agreement it is quite clear that the assessee was granted non transferable license to use the trade mark Nike in connection with sourcing, marketing land sale of goods. The technical know how and other information ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us, the CIT(A) in his well reasoned and well discussed order has rightly deleted the impugned addition made by the AO by holding that the royalty expenditure involved in the instant ground of appeal is revenue expenditure and not capital expenditure….." 4. Ms. Rashmi Chopra, learned counsel for revenue submitted that the ITAT erred in law and on merits in deleting disallowance of Rs.90,62,600/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nditure was of revenue nature. 7. Both the CIT(A) and ITAT have given cogent reasons for arriving at the conclusion that royalty payment was a revenue expense. Moreover, in our opinion as the assessee ceased to have any right to use technical information and/or trademark upon termination of agreement, there was no advantage of enduring nature derived by the assessee from the said agreement. Cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
