9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial Member These appeals of the Revenue are directed against separate orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-11, Chennai, dated 13.3.2015, for assessment years 2001-02, 2008-09 and 2009- 10. Since common issues arise for consideration in all the appeals, we heard them together and disposing of the same by this common order. 2. There was a delay of three days in filing the appeals by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s condoned and the appeals are admitted. 3. The first issue arises for consideration is expenditure incurred by the assessee with regard to payment of logo charges. 4. Dr.Milind Madhukar Bhusari, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the assessee debited a sum of Rs. 2,10,34,867/- towards logo charges. The assessee claimed before the Assessing Officer that they entered into an agreement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing to the ld. DR, the Revenue has filed an appeal before the High Court against the order of this Tribunal and to keep the matter alive, the present appeal is filed before this Tribunal. 5. The ld. DR further submitted that the next ground is with regard to payment of royalty. Referring to the order of the Assessing Officer, the ld. DR pointed out that the assessee has paid fee for technical kno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Officer treated both the payments as capital in nature and allowed depreciation @ 25%. The CIT(A) by following the order of this Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment years 2002-03 to 2007-08 allowed the claim of the assessee by holding that the payments are in the revenue field. We have carefully gone through the order of this Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
