ACIT, MADURAI vs. FENNER CONVEYOR BELTING (P) LTD., MADURAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 968/CHNY/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 March 2018AY 2013-143 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following its own previous decisions in the assessee's case for earlier assessment years. The Tribunal found no change in facts or law.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed payments for management and services to a foreign company. The AO treated these payments as capital in nature and allowed depreciation, disallowing the balance. The CIT(A) directed the AO to treat the expenditure as revenue expenditure.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether payments made for management and services were capital or revenue in nature.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, JCIT
Hearing: 27.02.2018Pronounced: 05.03.2018

आदेश/ O R D E R

PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

The Revenue filed this appeal against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Madurai in dated 09.01.2017 for the assessment year 2013-14.

2.

M/s. Fenner Conveyor Belting (P) Ltd., the assessee, is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of conveyor belts used in automobile industries. While making the assessment for assessment year 2013-14, the AO found that the assessee claimed payments towards management and services charges to M/s. J.H. Fenner Company Ltd., UK. The AO treated the nature of the payment as capital in nature, allowed an appropriate depreciation and disallowed the balance. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) relying on the elaborate reasons mentioned by him in the assessee’s own case for assessment year 2008-09 in his order in dated 16.12.2015 directed the AO to treat the impugned expenditure as revenue expenditure and delete the addition made by the AO. Aggrieved, the Revenue filed this appeal.

3.

We heard the rival submissions. The AR brought to our notice that this tribunal in the assessee’s case for assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09 in & 579/Mds/2016 dated 27.04.2017 considered this issue and upheld the order passed the CIT(A) in favour of assessee. The DR submitted that the above tribunal’s orders have attained finality also. In the facts and circumstances, considering that there is no change in the factual matrix and law, following the above orders the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.

4.

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.

Order pronounced on Monday, the 05th day of March, 2018 at Chennai.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →