9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 1529X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Srimathi Standing Counsel COMMON ORDER [R. MAHADEVAN, J.] Challenge in this batch of writ petitions is to the common order dated 30.09.2019 passed by the second respondent (ITAT) in Stay Petition Nos.252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257 and 258/CHNY/2019 in ITA Nos.2275, 2276, 2277, 2278, 2279, 2280 and 2281/CHNY/2019 relating to the Assessment Years from 2010-11 to 2016-17. 2.Since the facts and issues involved in these writ petitions are identical and are intertwined, the same were heard together and are decided by this common order. 3.The succinctly stated facts of the case are as follows: 3.1 The petitioner, which was originally a partnership firm and now, converted into a limited company, is engaged in the business of manufacture and sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deduction towards depreciation on goodwill for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12, has disallowed depreciation claimed on brand value by the petitioner, in respect of the assessment years 2012-13 to 2016-17 stating that no cost has been incurred to acquire brand value. Apart from the same, the first respondent has made disallowances towards construction of school building, dividend under Section 14A of the Act, foreign tour expenses and also additions towards alleged transfer of profit to sister concern. 3.5 Challenging the assessment orders so passed by the first respondent, the petitioner filed statutory appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai and the same were numbered as ITA Nos.311 to 315/17-18, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsidering the same in a proper perspective, the first respondent has passed assessment orders disallowing the depreciation, which was also confirmed by the Appellate Authority. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that without examining the other aspects, the second respondent (ITAT) has erred in dismissing the stay applications, referring to the earlier judgment passed by a co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in RMKV Fabrics v. DCIT (cited supra), which has not attained finality, as the appeal filed thereagainst, is pending consideration before this Court. Apart from that, the learned Senior Counsel, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner has already paid a sum of Rs.5,81,05,465/- (Rs.4,31,05,465/- representing 20% of the di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal. Such course adopted by the Tribunal, in the opinion of this Court, cannot be countenanced. 7.In such view of the matter and also in the light of the admitted facts that the petitioner has already paid a substantial amount and is also inclined to pay a further sum of Rs.2 crores in addition to the third instalment of Rs.75,00,000/-, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the grounds raised by the petitioner in the stay applications as it is tantamount to dealing with the legal issues involved in the main appeals, holds as under: (i) the order dated 30.09.2019 passed by the second respondent (ITAT) is set aside, subject to payment of Rs.2 crores + Rs.75 lakhs by the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
