9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1306X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... research expenses for the current year/s u/s 35(1)(iv) of the act - the assessee having itself considered it as capital expenditure – thus, no amount would survive for being carried over as the WDV of the relevant 'block of assets' u/s. 43(6) - the assessee having already secured full deduction for the immediately preceding year/s – Decided in favour of Assessee. - I.T.A. Nos. 33 & 36/Mum/2012 - - - Dated:- 31-7-2013 - Shri Sanjay Arora, A. M. And Shri Vijay Pal Rao, J. M.,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri D. K. Shivaram Shri Paras S. Savla For the Respondent : Shri Santosh Kumar ORDER Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: These are a set of two Appeals by the Assessee, i.e., in respect of two consecutive assessment years, being (AYs) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lay in identical circumstances had occurred, with even the dates of the receipt of the order; the payment of the appeal fees, as well as the persons involved, being the same. The same found acceptance by the tribunal, considering it to be a sufficient cause. The ld. DR, on the other hand, would state that it is a clear case of latches on the part of the assessee and, further, the matter being factual, no support from the decision in another case could be drawn. 2.2 After hearing the parties, the Bench was of the view that the delay under the circumstances had occurred on account of negligence at the end of the counsel, for which the assessee, who had duly signed the papers in time, also depositing the appeal fees, cannot be made to suffer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4,11,31,211 Additions during the year 8,98,36,842 13,09,68,053 Less: Depreciation @ 25% 3,27,42,012 W.D.V. as on 31.03.2007 9,82,26,041 The matter for A.Y. 2006-07 has since been resolved, at least up to the stage of the tribunal, with it holding the said expenditure to be revenue expenditure, allowable in full u/s.37(1) of the Act. He would then advert to the relevant parts of the said order, placing a copy of the same on record (in ITA No.5311/Mum/2011 dated 16.04.2013). In this view of the matter, the appeals for two years in appeal may also be decided likewise, i.e., allowing the assessee's claim in full u/s. 37(1) of the Act. 4.2 The ld. DR, on the other han ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sis inasmuch as it has been not able to specify as to what intangible asset has resulted by incurring the impugned expenditure, and for which a specific query was put to the ld. DR during hearing, to no firm reply. Further, even assuming it has, for which we would have to ascertain the exact purpose of the said expenditure, as where it has given rise to some perceptible body of knowledge, patent, product prototype, etc., erstwhile not available, the said expenditure being allowable under a specific provision of the Act, i.e., s. 35(1)(iv), the same would prevail over the general provision of s. 32(1), under which the Revenue allows depreciation thereon. In any case, the eligibility to depreciation would not be an impediment in allowing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
