TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1042X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dhika on account of business expediency and the Learned Assessing Officer cannot decide what the businessman can do for the purpose of business. He cannot decide on behalf of the assessee. Being so, we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld. Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(A) in deleting the disallowance of notional interest at ₹ 24 lakhs. Hence, this ground raised by the Revenue is rejected. Addition made towards provision for bad and doubtful debts - scope of rectification of mistake orders - Held that:- The assessee made a claim before the Learned Assessing Officer though revised computation of income as bad debt. This claim was allowed by the Learned Assessing Officer while framing the assessment u/s.143(3). Later, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s) erred in allowing depreciation on non-compete fee and brand equity when they are not in the nature of intangible asset listed u/s.32 namely know-how, copy rights, patents. 3. The facts of the issue are that the AO made the disallowance of depreciation claim on brand equity of ₹ 2,50,282/- and non-compete fee of ₹ 2,50,282/- relying on the stand taken in the previous year. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee relied on the decision of the Tribunal in assessee s own case in ITA Nos.2241/Mds/2006 for assessment year 2001-02, 812/Mds/2008 for assessment year 2004-05, and 1900/Mds/2008 for the assessment years 2005-06 and in ITA No.1035/Mds/2009 for assessment year 2006-07 held that the claim of depreciation on non-compete fee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... res towards fixed assets, ₹ 18.90 crores towards sundry debtors and ₹ 6.35 crores for teleserial rights inferred that the interest free lease deposit of ₹ 2 crores was only paid out of loans availed and made notional interest disallowance of ₹ 24,00,000/- being 12% of ₹ 2 crores. Aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). 6.1 Before the CIT(Appeals), the ld. AR, in his written submission argued that no part of the borrowed funds was utilised in the payment of rent deposit as the agreement of lease was entered into on 31.3.2000 and 1.7.2002 for the lease of the premises at No.3 and No.4, Paul Appasamy Street, T. Nagar, Chennai and no disallowance on this count was made in any of the previ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd raised by the Revenue is rejected. 8. The only ground raised by the Revenue in ITA No.1669/Mds/2013 is that the CIT(Appeals) erred in deleting the addition made towards provision for bad and doubtful debts to the extent of ₹ 48.77 lacs. 9. The facts of the case are that the assessee claimed ₹ 48.77 lacs as provision for bad and doubtful debts in the return of income filed. However, at the time of assessment, revised computation was filed and claimed it as a bad debt. The same was allowed by the Assessing Officer. Further, vide rectification order u/s.154 of the Act dated 31.3.2011, the AO treated it as provision for bad debt and disallowed the same. On appeal, the CIT(Appeals) allowed the same as bad debt. Against this, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
