| |
| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 2252 (Chen-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 263 read with section 32
Where assessee incurred expenditure for creation of an intangible asset (brand name) such expenditure was to be treated as capital in nature and assessee was entitled for depreciation under section 32(1), as this was one of possible views taken by AO, thus, PCIT was not justified in revising order of AO in exercise of his power under section 263.
|
Revision under section 263 - Erroneous and prejudicial order - Jurisdiction of PCIT to invoke section 263 - Expenditure incurred for creation of an intangible asset (brand name) whether eligible for depreciation
Product developed by assessee was exported to international market. AO classified intangible asset under the head commercial right of similar nature and allowed depreciation under section 32(1). Case of assessee was that PCIT was not justified in revising order in exercise of his power under section 263. Held: When assessee incurred expenditure for creation of an intangible asset namely brand name 'Pantherkid', such expenditure was to be treated as capital in nature. Therefore assessee was entitled for depreciation under section 32(1). This was one of possible views taken by AO and PCIT was not justified in revising order of AO in exercise of his power under section 263.
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour
A.Y. : 2014-15
INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 263 read with section 2(14)
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|