The Tax PublishersM.A. No. 72/Del/2020 (in ITA No. 2910/Del/2017)
2020 TaxPub(DT) 5429 (Del-Trib)INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 254
Where assessee contended that there was mistake in order of Tribunal, as cases cited by assessee were not considered by Tribunal, considering that being the jurisdictional High Court decision, Tribunal followed judgment of Court in Sharp Business System and accordingly taken a view that the depreciation claimed on the said non-compete fee cannot be allowed, the rest of the cases cited by the assessee were not coming under the jurisdictional High Court decision of Sharp Business System, therefore, there was no error in order of Tribunal.
|
Appeal (Tribunal) - Rectification of mistake apparent from record contention of assessee that all the cases cited by assessee were not considered by Tribunal - -
Assessee acquired certain group of hospitals and paid non-compete fee which was capitalized by assessee in its books of account. Issue was as regards claim of depreciation on same. Case of assessee was that there were certain mistakes apparent from record within the meaning of section 254(2) in order of Tribunal, where assessee contended that Tribunal failed to consider various judicial cases. Held: Being the jurisdictional High Court decision, Tribunal followed judgment of Court in Sharp Business System and accordingly taken a view that the depreciation claimed on the said non-compete fee cannot be allowed. The rest of the cases cited by the assessee were not coming under the jurisdictional High Court decision of Sharp Business System. Thus, arguments in this part of Miscellaneous Application were dismissed.
Followed:Sharp Business System v. CIT (ITA No. 492/2012, Order, dated 5-11-2012) : 2013 TaxPub(DT) 178 (Del-HC).
REFERRED : Asstt. CIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (2008) 173 Taxman 322 (SC) : 2008 TaxPub(DT) 2300 (SC), Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. CIT (2007) 165 Taxman 207 (SC) : 2007 TaxPub(DT) 1553 (SC), Pr. CIT v. Ferromatic Milacron India Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 99 Taxmann.com 154 (Guj.-HC) : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 6768 (Guj-HC), Pr. CIT v. Zydus Wellness Ltd. (2016) 76 Taxmann.com 328 (Ahmd.-Trib.) : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 5185 (Ahd-Trib), CIT v. Ingersoll Rand International Ind. Ltd. (2014) 48 Taxamann.com 349 (Karn-HC), Areva T & D India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2012) 20 Taxmann.com 29 (Del-HC) : 2012 TaxPub(DT) 2033 (Del-HC), Asstt. CIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. 2003 TaxPub(DT) 1165 (Guj-HC), Asstt. CIT v. Fortis Hospitals Ltd. 2019 TaxPub(DT) 6395 (Del-Trib), Dy. CIT v. Caparo Engineering India (P.) Ltd. [ITA No. 3661/Del/2013, dt. 22-9-2017], Kapil Chits (Kakatiya) (P) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT (2017) 85 taxmann.com 300 (Hyd.-Trib) : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 4379 (Hyd-Trib), Reliance Communications Ltd. v. Dy. DIT (2017) 183 TTJ (Mum-Trib) 388 : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 5105 (Mum-Trib) and Rohit Tandon Prop. M/s. Prajna (India) Ltd. v. ITO (2017) 183 TTJ (Asr-Trib) 492 : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 530 (Asr-Trib).
FAVOUR : Directions issued.
A.Y. :
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|