9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 949X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Securities Ltd. [2012 (8) TMI 713 - SUPREME COURT] has held that goodwill is an asset under Explanation 3(b) to section 32(1). Before us, the Revenue has not pointed out any contrary binding decision in its support. In view of these facts and relying on the aforesaid decisions we are of the view that the assessee is eligible for depreciation. - Decided in favour of assessee. Addition on account of lump sum disallowance out of milgine and factory expenses as per para 5 of the appellate order - Held that:- While confirming the disallowance, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has noted that no submissions were made by the assessee in respect of the aforesaid ground. Before us also apart from the general statement, no details ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rship-firm stated to be engaged in the business of doing job work of embroidery. The assessee filed its return of income on June 30, 2003 for the assessment year 2003-04 declaring total loss of ₹ 2,18,480. The return of income was initially accepted under section143(1). Subsequently, the case was reopened by issuing notice under section 148 and thereafter assessment was framed under section 147 read with section 143(3) vide order dated October 22, 2010 and the total income was determined at ₹ 5,94,680. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who vide order dated September 30, 2011 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue has been decided by me against the assessee in my order in appeal No. CASIV/164/09-10, for the assessment year 2002-03. For the detailed reason given in that order, it is held that the appellant was not eligible for depreciation on goodwill. The disallowance is upheld. This ground fails. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the assessee is now in appeal before us. 7. Before us, in the written submissions, the assessee has submitted that the firm was initially started on July 17, 1981. It was further submitted that the assessee had paid compensation on retirement to the retiring partners and it was towards acquiring commercial right but in the books of account it was named as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2002-03 whereby its claim of depreciation was denied by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) nor has the assessee placed any material on record in respect of the aforesaid. As far as the payment to retiring partners over and above the capital and disclosed as goodwill by the assessee is concerned, the same is not in dispute. We find that in the case of B. Raveendran Pillai v. CIT [2011] 332 ITR 531 (Ker), the hon'ble High Court has held that when the goodwill paid was for ensuring retention and continued business, it was for acquiring a business and commercial rights and was comparable with trade mark, franchise, copyright, etc., rendered in the first part of clause 2 of section 32(1) and so much so, goodwill was covered by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the bills vouchers were missing or were self-made vouchers. Thus in the absence of complete supporting evidence with regard to the quantum of claim and the purpose of expenses, the Assessing Officer was of the view that the expenses cannot be verified and further as to whether the entire expenses have been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. He accordingly disallowed one-fifth of the expenses amounting to ₹ 1,58,606. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who upheld the order of the Assessing Officer and confirmed the disallowance by holding as under : 5. Ground No. 3 in the assessment year 2006-07 and ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the total turnover was reasonable and no disallowance was called for. The learned Departmental representative on the other hand supported the order of the Assessing Officer and the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 14. We have heard the learned Departmental representative and perused the material on record. We find that while confirming the disallowance, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has noted that no submissions were made by the assessee in respect of the aforesaid ground. Before us also apart from the general statement, no details have been filed by the assessee in support of its submissions. In view of the aforesaid facts, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Commissioner of I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
