Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.24 seconds)
Padmavati Properties & Trust Pvt. Ltd., ... vs Ito, Wd-11(3), Kolkata, Kolkata on 27 July, 2017 cites

M/S Madras Industrial ... vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Tamil ... on 4 April, 1997

7.3. We find that the ld CITA had in page 20 of his order in the finding portion of his order in para vi) had stated that the payment of Rs 1,50,37,500/- made by the assessee is nothing but discounted present value of the rent to be received by M/s Vidyut Electricals & Electronics Pvt Ltd and Multiplex Entertainments & Services Pvt Ltd from INOX for 25 years. Having held so, then the entire payment of Rs 1,50,37,500/- takes the character of payment of rentals which would be allowable as a revenue expenditure in the year of incurrence in one go. The ld CITA did not allow the claim of revenue expenditure of the assessee by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd vs CIT reported in 225 ITR 802 (SC). In the facts before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the assessee issued the debentures for a longer period and the actual cost of issue of debentures was equally spread over the life of debentures by the assessee, which was accepted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Whereas in the facts before us in the impugned case, the future rentals for 25 years have been worked out at discounted present value and the lump sum amount of Rs 1,50,37,500/- was arrived at and was paid by the assessee to the aforesaid two companies. It is not the actual rentals that are payable year on year , with or without any increase thereon, which was paid in one shot by the assessee in the facts before us. Hence we hold that the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court supra is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. However, the ld AR fairly stated that this claim though made in the grounds raised before this tribunal, would create administrative inconvenience of revising the orders of several assessment years and accordingly pleaded that the claim of depreciation be allowed u/s 32 on the said payment treating it as intangible asset, would meet the ends of justice. In our considered opinion, the payment made by the assessee for acquiring the license to receive the monthly charges from INOX clearly falls under the ambit of 'business or commercial rights' within the meaning of 'intangible assets' and thereby the assessee is indeed entitled to claim depreciation u/s 32 of the Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 445 - Full Document

Trio Elevators Company(India) Ltd.,, ... vs Assessee on 8 March, 2016

a) Delhi Tribunal in the case of ThyssenKrupp Elevator (India) (P) Ltd vs ACIT reported in (2014) 50 taxmann.com 279 (Delhi-Trib.) dated 29.8.2014 The brief facts of this case is that the assessee had acquired the 'Elevator Division' business of ECE Industries Ltd, which comprised of marketing, selling, erection, installation, commissioning service, repair, maintenance and modernization including major repairs of products on slump basis. The assessee's claim for depreciation in respect of Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC) for 'Elevator division' within the meaning of business or commercial rights of similar nature under section 32(1)(ii) was rejected by revenue authorities. HELD
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 8 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1