DCIT 8(3), MUMBAI vs. SHREYA LIFE SCINIDA P. LTD, MUMBAI
In the result, the ground of reopening is decided in favour of assessee, whereas ground of treating the non compete fee as revenue expenditure is decided in favour of Revenue
ITA 7071/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2016AY 2002-03
Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.7071/Mum/2010 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2002-03) Acit, Cc-44, Mumbai. Vs. Shreya Life Science Pvt. Ltd. Shreya House, 301-A, Pareira Hill Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400099 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs 9890 C (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajneesh K. Arvind (Dr) ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satish R Mody सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 14/01/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A), For The Assessment Year 2002-03, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147-13A Of The I.T. Act. 2. Following Grounds Taken By The Revenue :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law In Holding That The Notice Issued U/S.147 Is Bad In Law & Reassessment Made Is Invalid Without Appreciating The Fact That The Ao Had Not Discussed This Issue At All In His Original Assessment Order. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs.2.50 Cr. Being 1/4Th Of Rs.10 Cr. Paid To M/S Rallies India Ltd As Non-Compete Fees Treated By The Ao As Capital Expenditure Without Appreciating The Facts Brought On Record By The Ao. The Appellant Prays That The Order Of Cit(A) On The Above Grounds Be Set Aside & That Of Assessing Officer Be Restored.”
For Appellant: Shri Satish R ModyFor Respondent: Shri Rajneesh K. Arvind (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148
…refore, 11 this asset must be held to be subject to depreciation. Assessee would be entitled to depreciation in respect of non- compete fee which is in the nature of intangible asset. 20. Madras Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Real Image Tech (P) Ltd. (120 TTJ 983) has been held that payment made under a non- compete agreement was capital expenditure and entitled to depreciation as in intangible asset. The bench applied the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Techno Shares and Stocks Ltd. (101 TTJ 349) (Bom) (depreciation on stock exchange membership card) which was confirmed by the Hon’ble Supr…
