Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI & SHRI V. DURGA RAO
आदेश / O R D E R
PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER These three appeals by Revenue are directed against different orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Chennai, for the assessment years 2002-2003, 2004-2005 and 2005-2006. Since the I.T.A.Nos.467, 468 & 469/Mds/2015 :- 2 -: issue involved in these appeals are common in nature, these appeals are clubbed, heard together and disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience.
The common ground in these appeal is with regard to allowing 25% depreciation on Non-compete fee. At the time of completion of assessment the Assessing Officer disallowed depreciation as non compete fee does not fall in such category. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) relied on the order of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pentasoft Technologies Ltd (2014) (41 taxmann.com 120) and allowed the appeal of the assessee. Against this, the Revenue is in appeal before us.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. A similar issue was considered by Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pentasoft Technologies Ltd vs. DCIT 222 Taxman 2009 (Mad), wherein it was held that assets like trademark, patents and other rights are similar in nature are intangible assets, which in terms of section 32(1) (ii) of the Act would be a capital assets entitled to depreciation. In view of the order of the jurisdictional High Court, we I.T.A.Nos.467, 468 & 469/Mds/2015 :- 3 -: are inclined to confirm the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
In the result, appeals filed by the Department in the 468 & 469/Mds/2015 are dismissed.
Order pronounced on Wednesday, the 8th of April, 2015, at Chennai.