9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 60X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judicial forum. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and thus dismiss the grounds of the Revenue. - ITA.No.5297/Del./2019 - - - Dated:- 30-6-2022 - SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Assessee : Sh S.K. Agarwal, Advocate For the Revenue : Shri Toufel Tahir, Sr. D.R. ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, A.M. This appeal by Revenue has been directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A), Faridabad, dated 31.03.2019 relating to the A.Y. 2016-2017. 2. The relevant facts as culled out from the material on record are as under : 2.1. The assessee is a Company stated to be engaged in the business of manufacturing of industrial felts w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with assessee and thus it is not an interim or adhoc arrangement, rather is acquired permanently? 4. Before us, at the outset, the Ld. D.R. submitted that that though the Revenue has raised various grounds, but, the sole grievance of the Revenue is with respect to deletion of addition of Rs.3,60,48,535/-. 5. During the course of assessment proceedings, A.O. noticed that assessee had debited Rs.3,60,48,535/- on account of Technical know-How Fees Royalty . According to A.O. the expenses appeared to be of capital in nature. The assessee was, therefore, show caused and asked to explain as to why the expenses should not be considered as capital expenditure. The assessee made detailed submissions which were not found acceptable to A.O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of Rs.3,60,48,535/- after allowing the claim of depreciation. 6. Aggrieved by the order of A.O., assessee carried the matter before CIT(A). 7. The Ld. CIT(A) decided the issue in favour of the assessee by noting that similar disallowances made by the A.O. for the A.Ys. 2009-10 to 2014-15 were deleted by his predecessor. He further noted that the order of Ld. CIT(A) for A.Y. 2009-10 to 2010-11 was confirmed by ITAT vide order dated 28.05.2018 and 07.06.2018 in ITA.Nos.6603, 6923/2014 and ITA.Nos.1196 1197/Del./ 2015. He, therefore, following the order of the Tribunal held that A.O. was not justified in making disallowance of Rs.3,60,48,535/-. 8. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue now is in appeal before us. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
