9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 733X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4C (13) of the Act on 29. 7. 2011 . 2. The CIT found that while completing the assessment the AO had disallowed a sum of Rs. 38. 35crores u/s. 40(a)(i)r. w. s. 9, 195 and 200 of the Act which was the depreciation claimed on payment made by the assessee to its AE for acquiring intellectual property and trade mark, that the assessee had capitalised both the intangible assets in its books of account, that while disallowing the depreciation the AO had not taken into account the foreign exchange loss of Rs. 5. 74 crores pertaining to acquisition of trade mark and licences. He held that the AO should have considered a sum of Rs. 5, 47, 40, 081/- being foreign exchange loss while making disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i), that the impugned loss was part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and intellectual property for Rs. 167. 95crores in the AY 2007-08, that in the appellate proceedings the Tribunal had held that provisions of section 40(a)(i)were not applicable on depreciation claimed by the assessee on the amounts paid to its AE as it was capitalised, that alternatively the assessee had submitted that the exchange loss was Rs. 5. 47crores, that the depreciation claimed was only Rs. 1. 33crores. The CIT directed the AO that Forex laws relating to the amount of Rs. 153 crores should be capitalised and depreciation thereon computed by the assessee at Rs. 1. 33 crores would have to be disallowed. With regard to sales tax collected from the customers the assessee argued that there was dispute on the issue with the Government a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on amount was capitalised on which depreciation of Rs. 20. 09 crores was claimed, that following the earlier practise the entire consumption expenditure of containers (Rs. 176. 05 crores. ) was claimed as revenue expenditure . The CIT directed the AO to verify the claim made by the assessee. 4. During the course of hearing before us the Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee contended that order passed by AO was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, that he had made proper enquiries and examined the accounts during the course of assessment proceedings, that it could not be held that there was no application of mind by the AO, that the CIT had wrongly invoked the provisions of section 263 of the Act. He r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee, that the order passed by the AO was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. He also referred to the case of Dish TV India Ltd. (157 ITD 1096). The Departmental Representative(DR)supported the revisionary-order of the CIT. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us. We find that while completing the assessment the AO had called for explanation about the issue raised by the CIT in his revisionary order, that after being satisfied and after considering the submission of the assessee the AO had passed an order. Thus, there was no lack of enquiry on part of the AO and he had taken an informed decision. Therefore, it cannot be said that no proper enquiry was made. We find that the issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
