https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369257 The appeal challenged the order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, contesting the justification of revision proceedings. The Commissioner of Income Tax found the explanations insufficient and directed to modify the assessment order, deeming it prejudicial to revenue. Regarding the eligibility of non-compete fees for depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii), the CIT ruled such fees as capital in nature, not eligible for depreciation. The Tribunal condoned a 35-day delay in filing the appeal, citing inadvertent error and minimal delay as reasons. The Tribunal's decision encompassed these key issues, legal interpretations, and the final outcome. en-us Mon, 15 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Oct 2018 17:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369257 The appeal challenged the order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, contesting the justification of revision proceedings. The Commissioner of Income Tax found the explanations insufficient and directed to modify the assessment order, deeming it prejudicial to revenue. Regarding the eligibility of non-compete fees for depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii), the CIT ruled such fees as capital in nature, not eligible for depreciation. The Tribunal condoned a 35-day delay in filing the appeal, citing inadvertent error and minimal delay as reasons. The Tribunal's decision encompassed these key issues, legal interpretations, and the final outcome. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 15 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369257