TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n case for assessment years 2002-03 to 2007-08, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority. Merely because an appeal against the order of this Tribunal is said to be pending before the High Court, that cannot be a reason to take a different view. - Decided against revenue - ITA Nos. 1587 to 1589/Mds/2015 - - - Dated:- 13-11-2015 - N. R. S. Ganesan, JM And A. Mohan Alankamony, AM For the Appellant : Dr Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT For the Respondent : Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, Adv ORDER Per N R S Ganesan, Judicial 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade name 'ttk'. The assessee claimed the payment towards logo charges as revenue expenditure. According to the ld. DR, the payment made by the assessee towards logo charges is capital in nature, therefore, entitled for depreciation @ 25%. Hence, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee, however, allowed depreciation @ 25%. However, on appeal by the assessee, the CIT(A), by following the order of this Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment years 2002-03 to 2007-08 found that the payment towards logo charges is exclusively for the purpose of business hence, it has to be allowed. This Tribunal, in fact, confirmed an identical order of the CIT(A) and CIT(A) followed the order of this Tribunal. According to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve carefully gone through the order of this Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment years 2002-03 to 2007-08. This Tribunal found that the payment of royalty and logo charges are revenue in nature, therefore, has to be allowed while computing the taxable income. In view of the order of this Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment years 2002-03 to 2007-08, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority. Merely because an appeal against the order of this Tribunal is said to be pending before the High Court, that cannot be a reason to take a different view. Therefore, following the order of this Tribunal and for the reasons stated therein, the order or the CIT(A) is confirmed. 8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
