DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(1), CHENNAI vs. REPCO HOME FINANCE P LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

capital and of the general reserves of the specified entity, no allowance under this clause shall be made in respect of such excess. Explanation.- in this clause, (a) "specified entity" means,- (i) a financial corporation specified in section 4A of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) ; (ii) a financial corporation which is a public sector company ; (iii) a banking

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. SUNDARAM BNP PARIBAS HOME FINANCE, CHENNAI

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee and

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1888/Chny/2018, 929, 2149 & 2150/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17) M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Finance Ltd., Income Tax, Sundaram Towers, 46,Whites Road Corporate Circle-6(2) Chennai-600 014. Chennai-34. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3219 & 1513/Chny/2018, 301, 829, 2077 & 2078/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2012-13, 2014-15 To 2016-17) Vs M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Home Finance Ltd., Corporate Circle-6(2) Sundaram Towers, Chennai-34 46,Whites Road Chennai-600 014. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

gains of business or profession’ and thus, any other income, including incidental income reported under ‘other income’ is not entitled for deduction u/s.36(1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, fact remains that the assessee argument was that the Assessing Officer has considered total income derived under the head ‘other income’, including income derived from non- eligible business

ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6 (2), CHENNAI vs. M/S SUNDARAM BNP PARIBAS HOME FINANCE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee and

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1888/Chny/2018, 929, 2149 & 2150/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17) M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Finance Ltd., Income Tax, Sundaram Towers, 46,Whites Road Corporate Circle-6(2) Chennai-600 014. Chennai-34. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3219 & 1513/Chny/2018, 301, 829, 2077 & 2078/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2012-13, 2014-15 To 2016-17) Vs M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Home Finance Ltd., Corporate Circle-6(2) Sundaram Towers, Chennai-34 46,Whites Road Chennai-600 014. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

gains of business or profession’ and thus, any other income, including incidental income reported under ‘other income’ is not entitled for deduction u/s.36(1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, fact remains that the assessee argument was that the Assessing Officer has considered total income derived under the head ‘other income’, including income derived from non- eligible business

M/S SUNDARAM BNP PARIBAS HOME FINANCE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6 (2), CHENNAI

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee and

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1888/Chny/2018, 929, 2149 & 2150/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17) M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Finance Ltd., Income Tax, Sundaram Towers, 46,Whites Road Corporate Circle-6(2) Chennai-600 014. Chennai-34. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3219 & 1513/Chny/2018, 301, 829, 2077 & 2078/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2012-13, 2014-15 To 2016-17) Vs M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Home Finance Ltd., Corporate Circle-6(2) Sundaram Towers, Chennai-34 46,Whites Road Chennai-600 014. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

gains of business or profession’ and thus, any other income, including incidental income reported under ‘other income’ is not entitled for deduction u/s.36(1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, fact remains that the assessee argument was that the Assessing Officer has considered total income derived under the head ‘other income’, including income derived from non- eligible business

ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6 (2), CHENNAI vs. M/S SUNDARAM BNP PARIBAS HOME FINANCE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee and

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1888/Chny/2018, 929, 2149 & 2150/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17) M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Finance Ltd., Income Tax, Sundaram Towers, 46,Whites Road Corporate Circle-6(2) Chennai-600 014. Chennai-34. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3219 & 1513/Chny/2018, 301, 829, 2077 & 2078/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2012-13, 2014-15 To 2016-17) Vs M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Home Finance Ltd., Corporate Circle-6(2) Sundaram Towers, Chennai-34 46,Whites Road Chennai-600 014. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

gains of business or profession’ and thus, any other income, including incidental income reported under ‘other income’ is not entitled for deduction u/s.36(1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, fact remains that the assessee argument was that the Assessing Officer has considered total income derived under the head ‘other income’, including income derived from non- eligible business

M/S SUNDARAM BNP PARIBAS HOME FINANCE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6 (2), CHENNAI

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee and

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1888/Chny/2018, 929, 2149 & 2150/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17) M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Finance Ltd., Income Tax, Sundaram Towers, 46,Whites Road Corporate Circle-6(2) Chennai-600 014. Chennai-34. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3219 & 1513/Chny/2018, 301, 829, 2077 & 2078/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2012-13, 2014-15 To 2016-17) Vs M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Home Finance Ltd., Corporate Circle-6(2) Sundaram Towers, Chennai-34 46,Whites Road Chennai-600 014. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

gains of business or profession’ and thus, any other income, including incidental income reported under ‘other income’ is not entitled for deduction u/s.36(1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, fact remains that the assessee argument was that the Assessing Officer has considered total income derived under the head ‘other income’, including income derived from non- eligible business

ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6 (2), CHENNAI vs. M/S SUNDARAM BNP PARIBAS HOME FINANCE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee and

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1888/Chny/2018, 929, 2149 & 2150/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17) M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Finance Ltd., Income Tax, Sundaram Towers, 46,Whites Road Corporate Circle-6(2) Chennai-600 014. Chennai-34. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3219 & 1513/Chny/2018, 301, 829, 2077 & 2078/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2012-13, 2014-15 To 2016-17) Vs M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Home Finance Ltd., Corporate Circle-6(2) Sundaram Towers, Chennai-34 46,Whites Road Chennai-600 014. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

gains of business or profession’ and thus, any other income, including incidental income reported under ‘other income’ is not entitled for deduction u/s.36(1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, fact remains that the assessee argument was that the Assessing Officer has considered total income derived under the head ‘other income’, including income derived from non- eligible business

SUNDARAM BNP PARIBAS HOME FINANCE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(2), CHENNAI

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee and

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1888/Chny/2018, 929, 2149 & 2150/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17) M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Finance Ltd., Income Tax, Sundaram Towers, 46,Whites Road Corporate Circle-6(2) Chennai-600 014. Chennai-34. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3219 & 1513/Chny/2018, 301, 829, 2077 & 2078/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2012-13, 2014-15 To 2016-17) Vs M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Home Finance Ltd., Corporate Circle-6(2) Sundaram Towers, Chennai-34 46,Whites Road Chennai-600 014. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

gains of business or profession’ and thus, any other income, including incidental income reported under ‘other income’ is not entitled for deduction u/s.36(1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, fact remains that the assessee argument was that the Assessing Officer has considered total income derived under the head ‘other income’, including income derived from non- eligible business

SUNDARAM BNP PARIBAS HOME FINANCE LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORP CIR -6(2), CHENNAI

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee and

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1888/Chny/2018, 929, 2149 & 2150/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17) M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Finance Ltd., Income Tax, Sundaram Towers, 46,Whites Road Corporate Circle-6(2) Chennai-600 014. Chennai-34. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3219 & 1513/Chny/2018, 301, 829, 2077 & 2078/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2012-13, 2014-15 To 2016-17) Vs M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Home Finance Ltd., Corporate Circle-6(2) Sundaram Towers, Chennai-34 46,Whites Road Chennai-600 014. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

gains of business or profession’ and thus, any other income, including incidental income reported under ‘other income’ is not entitled for deduction u/s.36(1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, fact remains that the assessee argument was that the Assessing Officer has considered total income derived under the head ‘other income’, including income derived from non- eligible business

ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(2), CHENNAI vs. SUNDARAM BNP PARIBAS HOME FINANCE LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee and

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1888/Chny/2018, 929, 2149 & 2150/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17) M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Finance Ltd., Income Tax, Sundaram Towers, 46,Whites Road Corporate Circle-6(2) Chennai-600 014. Chennai-34. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3219 & 1513/Chny/2018, 301, 829, 2077 & 2078/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2012-13, 2014-15 To 2016-17) Vs M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Home Finance Ltd., Corporate Circle-6(2) Sundaram Towers, Chennai-34 46,Whites Road Chennai-600 014. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

gains of business or profession’ and thus, any other income, including incidental income reported under ‘other income’ is not entitled for deduction u/s.36(1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, fact remains that the assessee argument was that the Assessing Officer has considered total income derived under the head ‘other income’, including income derived from non- eligible business

ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6 (2), CHENNAI vs. M/S SUNDARAM BNP PARIBAS HOME FINANCE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee and

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1888/Chny/2018, 929, 2149 & 2150/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17) M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Finance Ltd., Income Tax, Sundaram Towers, 46,Whites Road Corporate Circle-6(2) Chennai-600 014. Chennai-34. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3219 & 1513/Chny/2018, 301, 829, 2077 & 2078/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2012-13, 2014-15 To 2016-17) Vs M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Home Finance Ltd., Corporate Circle-6(2) Sundaram Towers, Chennai-34 46,Whites Road Chennai-600 014. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

gains of business or profession’ and thus, any other income, including incidental income reported under ‘other income’ is not entitled for deduction u/s.36(1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, fact remains that the assessee argument was that the Assessing Officer has considered total income derived under the head ‘other income’, including income derived from non- eligible business

UCAL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CHENNAI-3,, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

36(1)(va) of the Act and the assessee had responded to the said Show Cause Notice by placing on record the above submissions in support of the prayer to drop the said proposal following which the Assessing Officer had proceeded to pass the scrutiny assessment order dated 20.09.2022 by not making proposed disallowance in accepting the return of income

SRI K.SRIKANTH,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

36)/CIT-l/263/2009-10 for the above assessment year is contrary to law, facts, and in the circumstances of the case. 2. The CIT erred in passing the order u/s 263 of the Act in directing the Assessing Officer to re-examine the computation of Long Term Capital Gains as well as to re- examine the eligibility of the deduction

ACIT,, CHENNAI vs. SRI. K.SRIKANTH,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

36)/CIT-l/263/2009-10 for the above assessment year is contrary to law, facts, and in the circumstances of the case. 2. The CIT erred in passing the order u/s 263 of the Act in directing the Assessing Officer to re-examine the computation of Long Term Capital Gains as well as to re- examine the eligibility of the deduction

SHRI K.SRIKANTH,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

36)/CIT-l/263/2009-10 for the above assessment year is contrary to law, facts, and in the circumstances of the case. 2. The CIT erred in passing the order u/s 263 of the Act in directing the Assessing Officer to re-examine the computation of Long Term Capital Gains as well as to re- examine the eligibility of the deduction

SRI K.SRIKANTH,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

36)/CIT-l/263/2009-10 for the above assessment year is contrary to law, facts, and in the circumstances of the case. 2. The CIT erred in passing the order u/s 263 of the Act in directing the Assessing Officer to re-examine the computation of Long Term Capital Gains as well as to re- examine the eligibility of the deduction

HARITA FEHRER LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CC - 2 (2),, CHENNAI

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2254/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3480/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3481/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2746/Chny/2019 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Harita Fehrer Limited Dcit-Corporate Circle-2(2) / बनाम/ No.29, Jayalakshmi Estates, Acit, Salary Circle-Ii Vs. Haddows Road, Chennai-600 006. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacch-1037-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Pradeep Dinodia, (Fca), Shri Ravikumar, (Ca) & Shri Anil Kumar, (Ca) - Ld. Ars !थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan (Add.Cit)-Ld. Dr

section 36(1)(vii) of the Income tax Act, by following the decision of Hon' ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Ltd Vs CIT (323 ITR 397).” 3. As is evident, the issues that fall for our consideration in this year are – (i) Depreciation on non-complete Fees; (ii) Applicable Rate of depreciation on computer software; (iii) Claim

HARITA FEHRER LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT SALARY CIRCLE II , CHENNAI

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2254/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3480/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3481/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2746/Chny/2019 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Harita Fehrer Limited Dcit-Corporate Circle-2(2) / बनाम/ No.29, Jayalakshmi Estates, Acit, Salary Circle-Ii Vs. Haddows Road, Chennai-600 006. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacch-1037-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Pradeep Dinodia, (Fca), Shri Ravikumar, (Ca) & Shri Anil Kumar, (Ca) - Ld. Ars !थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan (Add.Cit)-Ld. Dr

section 36(1)(vii) of the Income tax Act, by following the decision of Hon' ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Ltd Vs CIT (323 ITR 397).” 3. As is evident, the issues that fall for our consideration in this year are – (i) Depreciation on non-complete Fees; (ii) Applicable Rate of depreciation on computer software; (iii) Claim

HARITA FAHRER LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORP CIR-2(2), CHENNAI

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2254/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3480/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3481/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2746/Chny/2019 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Harita Fehrer Limited Dcit-Corporate Circle-2(2) / बनाम/ No.29, Jayalakshmi Estates, Acit, Salary Circle-Ii Vs. Haddows Road, Chennai-600 006. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacch-1037-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Pradeep Dinodia, (Fca), Shri Ravikumar, (Ca) & Shri Anil Kumar, (Ca) - Ld. Ars !थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan (Add.Cit)-Ld. Dr

section 36(1)(vii) of the Income tax Act, by following the decision of Hon' ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Ltd Vs CIT (323 ITR 397).” 3. As is evident, the issues that fall for our consideration in this year are – (i) Depreciation on non-complete Fees; (ii) Applicable Rate of depreciation on computer software; (iii) Claim