9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1506X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acquisition of any right to operate telecom services is to be allowed as a deduction in equal instalment over the period for which the licence remains in force. The concurrent findings of the ITAT and CIT (A) in this regard are not shown to be perverse or contrary to the express terms of those licenses. Consequently, the Court declines to frame the questions as posed by the Revenue at 2.1 to 2.3 above. Carry forward business loss/unabsorbed depreciation - Held that:- It is pointed out that what the Assessee claimed was brought forward unabsorbed depreciation in terms of Section 32 (2) of the Act and not unabsorbed brought forward business loss. The CIT (A) directed the AO to verify from the Respondent’s record and only permit claim relat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... years commencing from the date of issue of wireless operational license on 29th April 2003 by WPC Wing of Department of Telecommunication, Government of India. 4. It is stated that the Respondent commenced FM broadcasting with effect from 29th April 2003, i.e., AY 2004-05. It claimed deduction under Section 35ABB of the Act of 1/10th of license fee paid for the first year of licence. This was allowed by the Assessing Officer ( AO ) for the AY 2004-05 by the assessment order dated 9th November 2006 under Section 143 (3) of the Act. Likewise for the AY 2005-06, the Respondent claimed deduction under Section 35ABB of the Act in the sum equivalent to licence fee paid for the first year along with 1/9th of licence fee paid for the second year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 377; 12,65,82,440 incurred by the Assessee by migrating to Phase-II revenue sharing regime was treated as a capital loss and was disallowed as a revenue expenditure. 8. The Respondent then appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [ CIT (A) ]. By an order dated 2nd December 2010 , the CIT (A) partly allowed the Respondent/Assessee s appeal. The CIT (A) held that the remaining capital expenditure of ₹ 12,65,82,440 with regard to licence fee paid under Phase-I was not allowable in full during the year under consideration but proportionately over 10 years licence term as applicable for Phase-II licence to which the Respondent had migrated. Accordingly, the CIT (A) allowed ₹ 1,26,58,244 under Section 35ABB of the Act b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or Phase-II license of 10 years? 2.3 Whether learned ITAT erred in allowing the authorization of licence fee expenses of Phase I regime in Phase II regime as not allowed under Section 35ABB of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2.4 Whether in law and in facts, learned ITAT/CIT (A) were correct in deciding the Assessing Officer to verify and allow carry forward business loss/unabsorbed depreciation in as such as during the year under consideration the entire shareholding was transferred from one company to another? 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of the view that no substantial question of law arises on any of the above issues. As far as the questions 2.1 to 2.3 are concerned, the purport of the said questions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
