9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 798X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervision ? (2) Whether the ITAT was justified in holding that the expenditure incurred by the assessee on acquisition of trade-mark was allowable under Section 35A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 even though the said Section deals with the expenditure on acquisition of patent rights or copyrights ? (3) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in holding that even if the borrowed funds were utilized for acquisition of capital assets during the course of year, interest paid on borrowed funds is allowable as revenue expenditure under Section 36(1) (iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ? 2. The assessment year involved herein is AY 1998-99. 3. The assessee is a joint venture company form ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the assessee owns the plant and machinery for manufacture or processing of goods. In other words, deduction under Section 35AB of the Act would be allowable, where the assessee uses the technical knowhow to get the goods manufactured through a third party under its direct supervision and control. In this view of the matter, no fault can be found with the decision of the ITAT. Accordingly, the first question cannot be entertained. 5. As regards the second question is concerned, the assessing officer disallowed the expenditure incurred on acquisition of trade-mark under Section 35A of the Act on the ground that the said Section is restricted to the expenditure on acquisition of Patents and Copyrights Act and not to the expenditure o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Mr. Arun C. Bharat, CIT 7(1) and Mr. Ashish Pophare, DCIT 7(1) present in Court states that he is not pressing the second question, because in the facts of the present case, the revenue stands to loose if the decision of the ITAT on the applicability of Section 35A is set aside and the decision of the ITAT on the alternate claim is sustained. Accordingly, the second question cannot be entertained. However, it is made clear that the question as to whether deduction under Section 35A is allowable on the expenditure on acquisition of trademark is kept open to be decided in an appropriate case. 6. As regards the third question is concerned, counsel for the parties state that the said question stands answered against the revenue by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
