9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the action of the ld. AO in disallowing the set off of brought forward losses during the year. Before us, no cogent evidences has been brought on record by the assessee to buttress the categorical findings recorded by the ld. CIT(A). Hence not to interfere in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed. - Shri Kul Bharat, Judicial Member And Shri M.Balaganesh, Accountant Member For the Assessee : None For the Revenue : Shri Zafrul Haque Tanweer, CIT-DR ORDER PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in ITA No.1867/Del/2020 for A.Y. 2016-17 arises out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Delhi in appeal No.461/18-19/10175/19-20 dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s 2 (t) without going into the merit of fact of assessee and upheld the AO's addition based on a judicial order, which is not related to the matter of assess at all, and didn't accepted the already passed order (AY 12-13) by his predecessor in the same issue. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred confirming to disallow the brought forward accumulated losses of Amalgamating Company aggregating of Rs 618,27,952/- which was not claimed by the assesse u/s 72A of the Act, on the ground that section 72A is not applicable to assessee during the AY 2016-17. 5. The Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred to accept the order of AY 2012-13, passed by his predecessor on the same issue allowing depreciation on intangible asset i.e. non compete ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the NCLT. 5. During the course of assessment proceedings, on perusal of details filed by AR of the assessee company shows that the assessee company had executed Non Competition and Non Solicitation Agreement with Dr. Bala V. Balachandran, Mr. B. Hariharan, and M/s. Strategic Consulting Group dated 17-06-2011 and 20-07-2011 respectively and a further Service continuation Agreement on 02-08-2011 with Dr. Bala V. Balachandran. In terms of the said agreements, the non-compete fee was paid to these parties for restricting these parties from carrying out similar business activities or associating himself in any similar business for periods as mentioned in the respective agreements. Accordingly, the assessee has paid onetime non compete f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t be allowable as deduction by other and vice versa. Such kind of arrangement is dubious in view of the fact that the subsidiary company, M/s Great Lakes Institute of Management is licensed company u/s 25 of Companies Act, 1956, whose income from operation is completely exempt from income tax. Thus, the assessee appears to be indulging in diverting its income by claiming depreciation on the assets which was never utilized for its business purposes and whatever benefit accrues out of the non compete agreement, it goes to its subsidiary company. 4.10 From the above discussion following points emerges: (i) The non compete fees do not constitute an asset intangible in nature akin to know how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licence, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ufacture of computer software or the business of generation or distribution of electricity or any other form of power or mining or the construction of ships, aircrafts or rail systems or the business of providing telecommunication services whether basic or cellular, including radio paging, domestic satellite service, network to trunking, broadband network an internet services, the specified bank means the State Bank of India or a subsidiary bank as defined in the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Bank) Act, 1959, or a nationalized bank. Accordingly, the ld. AO show caused the assessee as to why the benefit of set off of brought forward losses should not be denied to the assessee. 7. The assessee responded that pursuant to the merger of G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
