9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 1002X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of interest expenses u/s. 14A of the Act of Rs. 13,44,876/= ?" {B} "Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in upholding the decision of the CIT (A) to delete disallowance under section 36 [1](iii) of the Act of Rs. 1,29,034/= ?" {C} "Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in upholding the decision of the CIT (A) to delete the disallowance of claim of additional depreciation of Rs. 2,17,595/= ?" {D} "Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in upholding the decision of the CIT (A) to delete the disallowance of royalty of Rs. 41,06,250/= ?" {E} "Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in upholding the decision of the CIT (A) t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upon a finding of fact recorded by it after appreciating the evidence on record. On behalf of the appellant, nothing has been pointed out to dislodge the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, nor is it the case of the appellant that the Tribunal has taken into consideration any irrelevant material or that any relevant material has been ignored. Under the circumstances, in the absence of any perversity in the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, the same does not give raise to any question of law. The said ground of appeal is, therefore, rejected. 3. As regards proposed Question (C), which relates to disallowance of additional depreciation of Rs. 2,17,595/under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act, a perusal of the order passed by the Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of fact after appreciation of the evidence on record, does not give rise to any question of law. Consequently, the said ground of appeal is also rejected. 4. Insofar as proposed Question {D} is concerned, which pertains to disallowance of royalty of Rs. 41,06,250/, as can be seen from the impugned order, the Tribunal has concurred with the findings of fact recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the assessee had not acquired any ownership rights for usage of the trade mark and had got the right of user only. Since assessment year 198990, the user charges claimed as royalty have been allowed in the assessments and the rate of user charges was 1% of the sales during the year under consideration and the tax has been deducted at source i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trary. The conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal, thus being based upon concurrent findings of fact, does not give rise to any question of law. Resultantly the said ground of appeal is also rejected. 6. Proposed Question (F) relates to reduction of Rs. 1,11,223/being prior period adjustment for the purpose of computation of the book profit under section 115JB of the Act. As can be seen from the impugned order, the Tribunal has merely applied the decision of the jurisdictional High Court to the facts of the case. Under the circumstances, the said ground of appeal does not give rise to any question of law and is, accordingly, rejected. 7. Insofar as proposed Questions (G), (H) & (I) are concerned, the court is of the view that the matter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
