9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 33X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal of the Revenue relates to deletion of disallowance of royalty claim of Rs..82,16,52,689/-. 2. The appeal filed by the Revenue is delay by 481 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 is within the lockdown extended period allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court due to outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has not raised any serious objection. Since the Revenue was prevented by reasonable cause, the delay of 481 days 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 M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 decision of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for earlier assessment years and prayed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I.T.A. No. 433/Chny/2021 dated 29.07.2022, wherein, by following the decision of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for the assessment year 2016-17 in I.T.A. No.2007/Chny/2019 as well as in the case of DCIT v. Shriram City Union Finance Limited in I.T.A. No. 2009/Chny/2019 vide order dated 22.10.2019 decided the issue against the Revenue, in which, the Tribunal has observed and held as under: "6. We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below including decisions of the Tribunal filed by the assessee. Similar issue on an identical fact was subject matter in appeal before the Tribunal for the assessment year 2016-17 in I.T.A. No.2009/Chny/2019 vide order dated 22.10. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rship 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 capital expenditure. 29. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. What was paid by the assessee is for the right to use the Logo belonging to Shriram Ownership Trust. When the assessee made payment for use of right, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the same cannot be treated as capital expenditure. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) has rightly found that the payment made by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
