9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1822X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed out by the appellant even prior to entering into an agreement dated 27th December, 2007 with G4S. The concurrent finding recorded is that the assessee had offered no explanation as to the manner in which the agreement had helped the assessee to carry out its business. These are findings of facts. Thus, mere entering into an agreement with it being actually put to use cannot lead to the conclusion that the payment made under the Agreement was for knowledge to be used in its business. - Decided against assessee. - Income Tax Appeal No. 72 of 2016 with Income Tax Appeal No. 76 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 24-7-2018 - M.S. SANKLECHA, SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ. Ms. Aarti Sathe, Advocate for the appellant. P.C. :- 1. These two Appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Assessing Officer treated the same as capital expenditure and allowed depreciation on the same. 4. Being aggrieved, the respondent preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), (CIT(A)). By order dated 10th August, 2011 and 11th April, 2012 for Assessment Year 2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively, the CIT(A) held that the expenditure could neither be considered as Revenue or Capital. This, after noting the fact that the Assessing Officer had held that the respondent had not used any trademark and disallowed the above expenditure, while inadvertently allowing depreciation on the same. It was further found that the business of providing manpower securities to its clients was carried out by the respondent for last many year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner of Income Tax Vs. G4S Securities System (India) Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 1943 of 2010) rendered on 11th July, 2011, had upheld the view of the Tribunal that similar expenditure should be allowed as Revenue expenditure. Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned order needs to be interfered with and the Appeal ought to be admitted. 7. We find that, CIT (A) and the Tribunal have both rendered finding of fact that the respondent-assessee has not led any evidence before it to establish the manner in which the technical knowhow as acquired from G4S NAMESA has been used in the business of the respondent. The authorities have also held that the Incident Report Format produced on account of ERP obtained from an Associated Enterprise to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
