TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (5) TMI 610
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....20th December 2012, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2005-06. 3. Grievance raised by the Assessing Officer, in this appeal, is as follows:- That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs 16,57,516 (17,07,516 - 50,000) made by the A.O. as per the provisions of Rule 8 D r.w.s. 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Learned representatives fairly agree that the issue is concluded in favour of the assessee inasmuch as, as held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg Co Ltd VS DCIT (328 ITR 81), rule 8 D is not retrospective in nature and would only apply from the assessme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her proceedings for the assessment year 2002-03. In the meantime, in the assessments for the assessment years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 also, the depreciation on non compete rights was disallowed. No independent reasons, however, were given for the said disallowance. It was simply stated in the assessment orders that "since the department has not yet accepted the assessee's claim for depreciation, the same is being disallowed ..." and that...."however, consequential effect would be given on the issue, if required, as per the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court". When the matter travelled in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals] for the assessment year 2003-04 and 2004-05, the Commissioner (Appeals] held that as the matter ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts of the case and discussion made in this behalf in the assessment orders for AYs 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06, the claim is disallowed for the assessment year 2006-07 also" and that "however, consequential effect would be given on the issue, if required, as per the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court". When the matter travelled before the CIT(A), the same directions were repeated but then once again came up before a coordinate bench of this Tribunal, and the coordinate bench, in deviation from the past stand, held that the learned CIT(A) was not justified in deciding the matter on the basis of an order which is yet to be pronounced, and remitted the matter back to the file of the CIT(A). In the meantime, Hon'ble Gujarat High Court had ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee as there are no adverse comments on the merits of the claim, and for the sake of consistency, we confirm the stand taken by the CIT(A) and decline to interfere in the matter. It is also important to bear in mind the fact that the net impact of this decision having been accepted is that no reassessment or recomputation can be done at this stage, since such an action will be time barred now and the provisions of Section 153(3], which restrict this limitation on time barring to give effect to finding or directions of Hon'ble High Court's order, will not come to the rescue to the assessee in this case since there is no such "finding or direction" on merits, which can be given effect, in terms of Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e is not even a whisper of the reason for coming to the conclusion, on merits, as to why the depreciation on the intangible assets in question has been declined. We have no occasion to deal with the merits, and the case of the Assessing Officer simply hinged on the outcome of Hon'ble High Court's decision for the assessment year 2002-03 but then this judgment is, as evident from our perusal of the same, is not on merits at all. In three subsequent assessment years also, this disallowance is deleted by the CIT(A), action confirmed by a coordinate bench of the Tribunal in one of the assessment years, and revenue is not in further appeal, the case of the revenue cannot be salvaged for those years at this stage. Learned Departmental Representat....