9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1042X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Rs. 2,50,282/- and non-compete fee of Rs. 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 and brand equity was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y debtors and Rs. 6.35 crores for teleserial rights inferred that the interest free lease deposit of Rs. 2 crores was only paid out of loans availed and made notional interest disallowance of Rs. 24,00,000/- being 12% of Rs. 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 previous asst. years and no deposit was made during the relevant previous year. He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o.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 Rs. 48.77 lacs. 9. The facts of the case are that the assessee claimed Rs. 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, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 10. We have heard both the sides and perused the material on r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
