9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 1263X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : JUDICIAL MEMBER: This is an appeal by assessee against the order dated 23.07.2018 of learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-8, New Delhi for assessment year 2014-15. 2. When the appeal was called for hearing, no one was present on behalf of the assessee to represent the case. 3. Considering the nature of dispute and the fact that the issue is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 32(1)(ii) and explanation to the said section, the assessing officer called upon the assessee to show cause why the depreciation claimed should not be disallowed. Ultimately, the assessing officer completed the assessment disallowing the claim of depreciation by following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Sharp Business System Vs. CIT (2012) 211 Taxman 576 (De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of depreciation, in course of proceedings before the departmental authorities, assessee has submitted that since depreciation was allowed in preceding assessment years, the same cannot be disallowed in the impugned assessment year as Rule of Consistency would apply. However, we are unable to agree with the aforesaid submission made by the assessee before the departmental authorities. It appears, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xercise against the world at large and can be traded or transferred, in case of non compete fee, the advantage is restricted only against the seller. Therefore, it is not a right in rem but in personem. We are conscious of the fact that some other non-jurisdictional High Courts have held that non compete fee is an intangible asset coming within the ambit of Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and have al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
