PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 vs. M/S SAPA EXTRUSION INDIA PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/680/2019HC KarnatakaKAHC01031441201910 March 2020Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal correctly followed a High Court precedent regarding the depreciation of non-compete fees. The High Court found no infirmity in the Tribunal's order and no substantial question of law arose.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in manufacturing and distribution of aluminum extrusion profiles, declared a loss for AY 2012-13. The Assessing Officer disallowed depreciation claimed on non-compete fee, reducing the loss. The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal, and the Tribunal upheld this decision.

What were the issues?

Whether depreciation can be claimed on a non-compete fee paid. Whether the Tribunal's decision, following a High Court precedent, was correct.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 143(3),Section 144C,Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2020

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

I.T.A. NO.680 OF 2019

BETWEEN:

1.

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6

BMTC COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA

BANGALORE.

2.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BMTC COMPLEX

KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU. ... APPELLANTS (By Sri. SANMATHI E.I. ADV.)

AND:

M/S. SAPA EXTRUSION INDIA PVT LTD., NO.17, 2ND FLOOR BANNERGATTA ROAD J.P. NAGAR, 3RD PHASE BENGALURU-560076 PAN:AAOCS 4633C. ... RESPONDENT - - -

THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, PRAYING TO DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND/OR SUCH OTHER

QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE HON’BLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT. SET ASIDE THE COMMON APPELLATE ORDER DATED 3/4/2019 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, BENGALURU, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS IN ITA NO.2294/BANG/2018 (ANNEXURE-A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 AS SOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEAL AND TO GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS DEEMED FIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Mr.E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel for the appellant. Heard on the question of admission.

2.

This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been filed by the revenue.

3.

Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the asessee is a Company engaged in the business of manufacture and distribution of aluminium extrusion profiles. The assessee filed the return for the assessment year 2012-13 declaring a loss of `40,28,03,386/-. The return was processed under

Section 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the case was taken up for scrutiny and the assessment was concluded under Section 143(3) read with 144C of the Act by which the assessee’s loss was determined at `31,49,38,785/- by disallowing the depreciation of `5,01,69,863/- claimed towards non-compete fee paid to Alufit (India) Pvt. Ltd. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The aforesaid appeal was allowed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

Being aggrieved, the revenue preferred an appeal. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal vide impugned order dated 03.04.2019, by placing reliance on the decision of this Court in CIT Vs. INGERSOLL RAND INTERNATIONAL LTD. (2014) 48 TAXMANN.COM 349 (KAR), dismissed the appeal preferred by the revenue.

4.

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants at length and have perused the record. The claim of depreciation of non-compete fee is no longer res integra and is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in CIT Vs. INGERSOLL, supra. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has followed the aforesaid decision and has dismissed the appeal preferred by the revenue. The order passed by the Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity. Therefore, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

More judgments on Section 144C

All 3,699 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →