9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e brought forward from the earlier year - The order u/s 143(3) for the AY 2003-2004 continues to operate and no proceedings under the Act were initiated to disturb the same - what comes within the purview of Section 32 (1) (ii) and whether the department was right when it allowed the depreciation on the basis or foundation for the earlier assessment years need not be gone into – the department has allowed the depreciation as claimed with regard to these fees - Decided against revenue. - IT APPEAL NO. 254 OF 2012 - - - Dated:- 18-6-2014 - S.C. DHARMADHIKARI AND B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ. Tejveer Singh for the Appellant. J.D. Mistry and Atul K. Jasani for the Respondent. ORDER 1. This Appeal impugns the order passed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , licenses, franchises or other business or commercial rights of similar nature. The expenses or expenditure like rent and utilities, salaries, administration etc, therefore, cannot be considered as intangible asset. Upon this conclusion, the Assessing Officer held that the depreciation on registration fee cannot also be allowed. 4. The matter was carried by the Assessee in Appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The argument also was that, in prior assessment years, this very depreciation and fees paid for registration to SEBI, was claimed. That was allowed. The Assessing Officer, therefore, could not have taken a different stand. 5. In this Appeal, we are only concerned with the issue of payment of registration fees ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... res and Stocks Ltd v/s Income Tax Officer reported in 101 TTJ 349 Bom., has been referred to by the Delhi High Court in its judgment and it has expressly disagreed with the same. For all these reasons he submits that the Appeal be admitted. 8 Mr. Mistry, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Assessee, on the other hand, submits that the Tribunal has gone by the rule of consistency and which is enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhasoami Satsang v/s Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 1992 (193) I. T. R. 341. Mr. Mistry submits that once the Tribunal found that the very expenses were sought to be claimed on the ground that they fall within the purview of Section 32 (1) (ii) and were treated as intan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... circumstances and without any material being placed on record to substantiate the shift in stand for the subject assessment year that the Tribunal emphasizing rule of consistency allowed Assesse's appeal. We do not think that such a view which has been taken in the given facts and circumstances and peculiar to the Assesse's case gives rise to any substantial question of law. Reliance placed on the Delhi High Court judgment therefore, cannot carry the case of the revenue in this matter any further. What comes within the purview of Section 32 (1) (ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and whether the department was right when it allowed the depreciation on the basis or foundation for the earlier assessment years need not be gone into in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
