9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ta Bansal, Senior Adv. with Mr Ram Avtar Bansal & Mr Prashant Kumar, Advs. ORDER 1. This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') is directed against the order dated 30th October 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT') in ITA Nos. 4414/Del/2012 and 4402/Del/2012 and Co. No. 406/Del/2012 for the Assessment Year ('AY') ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng market rate. It was observed that MM Mumbai had been incurring losses for the last few years. Accordingly, the AO disallowed 50% of the sum of Rs. 48.31 lakhs under Section 40A(2)(a) read with Section 37(1) of the Act. This was concurred with by the CIT (Appeals). 4. The ITAT on analysing the material on record noted that the AO had in fact not determined the fair market value of the professio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the payment to MM Mumbai at the said rate could not be said to be excessive and unreasonable. The ITAT also found that none of the three situations contemplated by Section 40A (2) (a) of the Act was attracted. 5. The Court finds that the ITAT has in fact returned a finding of fact after analyzing the material and sufficient details available on record. The Revenue has not been able to persu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd for a limited period. The Assessee was not authorized to use or permit others to use such technology except as specifically permitted by the licensor. In these circumstances, the decision of the ITAT that the said expenditure could not be considered as a capital expenditure does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and is consistent with the settled legal position explained by the Supre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
