9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disallowance of royalty claim of Rs..36,81,33,443/-. 2. The appeal filed by the Revenue is delay by 331 days in filing the appeal. The Assessing Officer has filed an affidavit towards condonation of delay in filing the appeal by stating that the delay was neither wilful not wanton and pleaded for condoning the delay, against which, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has not raised any serious objections. Since the Revenue was prevented by reasonable cause, the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a non-banking finance company and filed its return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 31.10.2017 admitting total income o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n on royalty @ 25% of Rs..12,27,11,147/-. On appeal, by following the decision of the ITAT in assessee's own case for earlier assessment years, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance of royalty payment. 4. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. By referring to the grounds of appeal, the ld. DR has submitted that the Department has not accepted the decision of the ITAT in assessee's own case for earlier assessment years and preferred further appeal before the Hon'ble Madras High Court and pleaded that the order of the ld.CIT(A) on this issue may be reversed. 5. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the issue involved in this appeal is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty is nothing but a capital expenditure, therefore, the Assessing Officer has rightly allowed depreciation. Hence, according to the Ld. D.R., the CIT(Appeals) is not justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 28. On the contrary, Shri R. Sivaraman, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, submitted that the assessee-Trust was using Logo of Shriram Ownership Trust for its business and paid royalty. According to the Ld. counsel, Shriram Ownership Trust is a separate entity. For using its Logo in the business of the assessee, a payment needs to be made and the assessee is not purchasing the Logo. What was obtained by the assessee is only the right to use Logo. Therefore, according to the Ld. Counsel, it cannot be treated as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
