TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rch, no incriminating material was found on the basis of which the assessment could have been framed in this respect - in the original return filed for the assessment year in question, when the claim was made by the assessee, the same was disallowed by AO but in the appeal, the CIT(A) accepted the same. Section 32 does cover certain intangible assets for depreciation. The Tribunal relied upon the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : Mr. Tejveer Singh For the Respondent : Mr. Percy Pardiwala, Senior Advocate a/w Ms. Vasanti Patil ORDER P.C.: 1. All these appeals involved the same assessee and identical issues. We may refer to facts from Income Tax Appeal No. 801 of 2016. 2. This appeal is filed by the Revenue challenging the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( the Tribunal for short) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1961 ( the Act for short). In the impugned judgment, the Tribunal noted that the assessee in the return had raised the claim of depreciation on its intellectual property rights. During the search operation, director of the assessee company reduced the claim of depreciation in his statement under Section 132(4) of the Act recorded by the Income Tax Authorities. The Tribunal further noted that d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceeded on the basis that the claim was part of the original return and therefore, there was no concealment by the assessee and further that CIT(A) had allowed such a claim for regular assessment and Section 32 of the Act also gave rise to a debatable issue in this respect. The Tribunal, therefore, in our opinion, correctly placed reliance in the decision in the case of Relinace Petro Products ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
