9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 564X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ayment of non-compete fee of Rs. 15.50 cr which was capitalized by the assessee in its books of account, on which depreciation was claimed. In the assessment, the AO rejected the claim for depreciation on the ground that since TDS u/s 194L had been deducted on the payment of Rs. 15.50 cr., provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act were applicable. He, however, proceeded to make disallowance of the entire amount i.e. Rs. 15.50 cr instead of the amount claimed as depreciation i.e. 1,93,75,000/- (inadvertently mentioned as Rs. 1,48,63,000/- in the orders). On further appeal, the CIT(A) vide Para 5:1 of his order accepted the argument of the assessee that Section 194L having ceased to operate w.e.f. 01.06.2000, the assessee was not obliged to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for a proper examination as had been done by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Caparo Engg India P Ltd. in ITA 3661/2013, a decision cited during the hearing but not mentioned or considered. The submission is also not mentioned in the order. v) In para 7 of the order of the Tribunal while dealing with the issue under consideration observes as under: "the CIT(A) observed in the order that the assessee paid non-compete fee of Rs. 15,50 cr. as part of the sale consideration for acquiring the Wockhardt Group of Hospitals without deducting the tax within the meaning of Section 194L of the Act and accordingly provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) came into play. (Extract from 5:1 of the order of the CIT(A). In the same pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Ld. AR were also considered by the Tribunal in the order and the Tribunal has rightly relied upon the jurisdictional High Court decision. Thus, there is no mistake apparent on record. The present Misc. Application is not for rectification but is for review of the order dated 30.08.2019 which is not permissible under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 under Section 254. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that in para 4 of the order dated 30.08.2019, there is typographical error. The said para 4 is modified as under: "4. .........the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee." Now coming to the judicial precedents cited by the Ld. AR during ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in favour of assessee therein and also relied the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Areva T & D India Ltd. (supra). In case of Pr. CIT vs. Ferronmatic Milacron India (P.) Ltd. (2018) 89 taxmann.com 154 (Guj. HC), the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court framed one of the question as to whether the Appellate Tribunal had erred in law and on facts in upholding the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition made on account of disallowance of Rs. 1,28,37,000/- on account of disallowance of depreciation on no-compete fees?. For which, the Hon'ble High Court held the question in favour of assessee therein and also relied the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Areva T & D India Ltd. (supra). In case of Kapi Chits (Kakatiya) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
