DCIT, CHENNAI vs. CITADEL AUROBINDO BIOTECH LTD., CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 468/CHNY/2015Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 April 2015AY 2004-053 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 decision by relying on the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. The High Court had held that intangible assets like trademarks and patents are eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii).

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order allowing 25% depreciation on non-compete fee. The Assessing Officer had disallowed this depreciation, considering non-compete fee as not falling within depreciable categories.

What were the issues?

Whether non-compete fee is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 32(1)(ii)

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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI & SHRI V. DURGA RAO

For Appellant: Shri. Rengaraj, IRS, CIT
For Respondent: Shri. S. Venkatram, C.A
Hearing: 08.04.2015Pronounced: 08.04.2015

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.

2.

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.

3.

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).

4.

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.

More judgments on Section 32(1)(ii)

All 565 judgments and leading authorities on Section 32(1)(ii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →