https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270071 Rectification under section 254(2) was sought for inconsistent findings on depreciation for non-compete fees. For the fee paid to Medispan Ltd., the earlier operative result conflicted with the precedent followed in the assessee's own case, so the mistake apparent from the record was corrected and depreciation was allowed. For the fee paid to Sudhir Vaid in relation to Concord Biotech Limited, the earlier result was corrected to reflect that the item fell outside depreciation under section 32(1)(ii), so the claim was disallowed. The Miscellaneous Application succeeded and the earlier order was amended accordingly. en-us Fri, 18 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 28 Dec 2015 15:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270071 Rectification under section 254(2) was sought for inconsistent findings on depreciation for non-compete fees. For the fee paid to Medispan Ltd., the earlier operative result conflicted with the precedent followed in the assessee's own case, so the mistake apparent from the record was corrected and depreciation was allowed. For the fee paid to Sudhir Vaid in relation to Concord Biotech Limited, the earlier result was corrected to reflect that the item fell outside depreciation under section 32(1)(ii), so the claim was disallowed. The Miscellaneous Application succeeded and the earlier order was amended accordingly. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 18 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270071