Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2013 (3) TMI 883

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... House Property' without appreciating the decision of Apex Court in the cases of CIT v/s. National Storage Pvt. Ltd. and Shambhu Investment Pvt. Ltd.? (b) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in allowing 100% depreciation on fork lift and without appreciating the fact that the fork lift is not registered as a vehicle under the Motor Vehicles Act? (c) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the claim of the assessee under Section 80IB should not be reduced by allocating H. O. expenses to the eligible unit? (d) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the expe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding the expenditure incurred for advertisement as revenue in nature without appreciating the fact that the assessee becomes owner of the advertisement films, which are reusable for an indefinite period of time? (j) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is justified in deleting the penalty imposed without appreciating the fact that the Tribunal itself confirmed the disallowance of depreciation and further directed the Assessing Officer to treat the same as 'Income from Other Sources'? 2 So far as Question (b) is concerned, the CIT(A) as well as Tribunal has allowed depreciation on fork lift at 100% as claimed by the Responde .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ding of fact that so far as R D expenses are concerned, when the expenses incurred by each unit could be determined in view of the manner in which accounts are maintained, it would not be proper to estimate the expenses and allocate it amongst all the units. The Tribunal in its order has allowed the claim of the Respondent Assesee by following its order for the Assessment Year 1995 96. The Tribunal in its order for the Assessment Year 1995 96 while dealing with Medok Unit has held that the unit has maintained separate accounts from which it could be easily found out whether the expenditure had been incurred in relation to the Medok Unit. It is not disputed by the Revenue that factually the facts in respect of Honda Kundaim Units are identic .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s concerned, the Tribunal by the impugned order has allowed the professional fees paid for trademark protection within the meaning of Section 37(1) of the said Act. The grievance of the Revenue is that the aforesaid deduction as revenue expenditure should not have been allowed as the Respondent Assessee was not the owner of the trademark. The Tribunal by the impugned order referred to the terms of the agreement which clearly provide that the Respondent Assessee had to bear the expenses for protecting the trademark. It is undisputed position that the Respondent Assessee would derive benefit by protecting the trade mark. Thus, whether trademark is owned or not by the Respondent Assessee does not matter as it is used by it and protection of th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... reliance is placed upon the order passed in the Respondent Assessee's case for the Assessment Year 1996 97. We are informed by the Counsel for the Revenue that the order of the Tribunal for the Assessment Year 1996 97 with regard to this issue viz: deduction on account of destruction of obsolete stock in trade has not been challenged before a higher forum by the Revenue. In view of the above, we see no reason to entertain Question (h). 9 So far as Question (i) is concerned, Counsel for the parties state that the issue raised herein is covered in favour of the RespondentAssessee and against the Revenue by the decision of this Court in the matter of CIT v/s. M/s. Geoffrey Manner Co., reported in 180 Taxmann 87. In that view of the matter .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates