9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2307X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and partly by way of taking over the accrued liability in respect of the gratuity and leave salary payable to the workers. For the purpose of computing the cost of the assets, only the present-day value of these accrued liabilities was taken into consideration by the assessee. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the facts of the case as well as the legal issue involved are within the all corners of the two decisions of the I.T.A.T. for assessment year 1989-1990, as mentioned above. Following the said line , therefore, we reverse the orders of the lower authorities and direct the AO to allow the claim of the assessee towards depreciation on the fixed assets acquired by it by considering the present-day value of the gratuity as well as th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ery, plant or furniture, being tangible assets, and know how patents, copyrights, trade marks, licences, franchises or other business or commercial rights of similar nature being intangible assets. The gratuity liability taken over by the respondent does not fall under any of those categories specified in section 32. Hence, in our opinion, no depreciation can be claimed in respect of the gratuity liability even if it is regarded as capital expenditure. The gratuity liability is neither a building machinery, plant or furniture nor is it an intangible asset of the kind mentioned in section 32(1)(ii). Hence, we fail to see how depreciation can be allowed on the same. In fact, depreciation cannot even be allowed on land because that too is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s appearing in clause 2 of the agreement "at or for the price of Rs. 410.- lakhs only free from all encumbrances and liens and liability save and except those which have been assumed and taken over by the purchaser as hereinafter mentioned and subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter appearing." He contended that this stipulation was not there in the agreement dated 1988. Therefore, the facts and circumstances of the case are different. He also drew our attention to clause 4 of the agreement which shows that money consideration has also been differently apportioned than what was in the earlier agreement. He contended that when the facts and circumstances are different, the question of the application of the judgment of the Supreme Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
