TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court overturns Tribunal decision, stresses reasoning & statutory compliance. Dispute on franchise fee depreciation.</h1> <h3>Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Central, Bangalore., Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2 (2), Bangalore. Versus M/s. GMR Sports Pvt. Ltd.</h3> Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Central, Bangalore., Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2 (2), Bangalore. Versus M/s. GMR Sports Pvt. Ltd. - TMI Issues:1. Interpretation of Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act regarding depreciation on franchise fees.2. Whether depreciation should be granted on total franchisee cost in the first year itself on accrual basis or only on the franchisee fees paid during the year in question.Analysis:1. The appeals were filed by the revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The main issue was whether depreciation should be granted on the total franchisee cost in the first year on accrual basis or only on the franchisee fees paid during the year. The franchise agreement required payment in 10 yearly installments, but the Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) directed the Assessing Officer to treat the franchise fees as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal allowed the cross-objection by the assessee and dismissed the appeal by the revenue.2. The revenue contended that depreciation should only be allowed on the amount paid during the relevant assessment year, while the assessee argued that depreciation should be allowed on the entire cost of the franchise rights. The Tribunal's order lacked reasoning and did not consider relevant statutory provisions. Therefore, the High Court quashed the order and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration with a speaking order.3. The assessee argued that the franchise rights were an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. They claimed that depreciation should be allowed on the entire cost of the franchise rights, not just the installment paid during the year. The High Court did not answer the substantial question of law due to the lack of reasoning in the Tribunal's order.4. The High Court emphasized the importance of the Tribunal providing reasons for its decisions and following relevant statutory provisions. The lack of reasoning in the Tribunal's order led to the quashing of the order and a remittance of the matter for fresh consideration. The issue of depreciation on franchise fees remains unresolved pending a new decision by the Tribunal.
TaxTMI 