TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the Principal Commissioner validly invoked revisional jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. (ii) Whether stamp duty paid in connection with an unregistered lease deed constituted an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Issue (i): Whether the Principal Commissioner validly invoked revisional jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis: The assessment order was examined on the footing that the Assessing Officer had allowed depreciation after enquiry. The Tribunal held that section 263 can be exercised only when the order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. It further held that adverse findings recorded behind the assessee's back, without confronting the assessee, could not be sustained. However, the Tribunal concluded that these procedural objections did not ultimately invalidate the revisional order because the assessment had allowed depreciation on a basis that was not a possible view in law.
Conclusion: The revision under section 263 was held to be valid.
Issue (ii): Whether stamp duty paid in connection with an unregistered lease deed constituted an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis: The Tribunal examined the scope of the expression "any other business or commercial rights of similar nature" in section 32(1)(ii) and applied the principle that it must cover rights of the same genus as the specified intangible assets. It held that mere payment of stamp duty on a lease agreement pending registration did not create a business or commercial right comparable to know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licences or franchises. The Tribunal also noted that the judicial authorities relied on for allowance of stamp duty as revenue expenditure did not support treating such payment as a depreciable intangible asset.
Conclusion: The assessee's claim for depreciation on the stamp duty payment was rejected.
Final Conclusion: The order revising the assessment and disallowing depreciation on the stamp duty payment was sustained, and the assessee's challenge failed.
Ratio Decidendi: A payment of stamp duty on an unregistered lease deed does not by itself constitute an intangible asset falling within section 32(1)(ii), and an assessment allowing depreciation on such payment is liable to revision under section 263 where the allowance is not a possible view in law.
TaxTMI 
