9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 744X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bengaluru. Respondent by : Shri H.V. Gowthama, CA ORDER Per N.V. Vasudevan, Judicial Member This is an appeal by the revenue against the order dated 17.07.2017 of the CIT(Appeals)-IV, Bengaluru relating to assessment year 2013-14. 2. The grounds raised by the revenue reads as follows:- 1. The order of the CIT (Appeals) is opposed to law and the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. On the facts and in circumstances of the case whether the CIT(A) in right in holding that the assessee is eligible for depreciation on account of non compete fee which is paid on account of trade and commerce and is a commercial right to enforce performance of the terms of the agreement. 3. For these and such other grounds t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at it had acquired the intangible asset which falls within the meaning of the expression or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature occurring in section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 [ the Act ]. The assessee in support of the aforesaid contention placed reliance on the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Ingersoll Rand International Ltd. 48 taxman.com 349 (Kar) wherein it was held that non-compete fee confers commercial rights which is akin to know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks licenses, franchises and commercial rights, and therefore was intangible asset on which depreciation has to be allowed as per the provisions of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 5. The AO, however, did not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt of Karnataka which is squarely applicable in the instant appeal, and in view of the fact that the decision is binding, and since judicial discipline requires that wisdom of higher authorities prevail, the AO is directed to allow depreciation to appellant by following above judicial decision. 7. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(Appeals), the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The ld. DR relied on the order of AO. The ld. counsel for the assessee relied on the order of CIT(Appeals). 9. We are of the view that in the light of the undisputed factual position that payment by the assessee in the present case is similar to payment that was considered by the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Ingersoll Rand Intern ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
