TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 740
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nation in the aforesaid AYs was: (i) Whether the assessee was given excessive depreciation for the UPS and Inverters? (ii) Whether it was justified in treating the fees and royalties for technical knowhow as revenue/business expenditure? 3. As far as the first question is concerned, it is sought to be urged by the Revenue that under Section 32(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 unless the assessee was able to show that the concerned UPS and computer peripherals have been used for more than 180 days in the previous year, it could not have claimed higher rate of depreciation @ 60%. The Court finds that the above ground urged by the Revenue ought to have been based on the factual determination as to whether with reference to the actual dates of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... consideration of US Dollars 1 million over a period of 10 years. Under Article 7.2, the Licensee was to pay royalty @ 5% for the contract services provided by the Licensee for the domestic market and 8% for export markets. 5. The question before the AO was whether the expenditure incurred by the Assessee in terms of the aforesaid TCA was capital or revenue expenditure. The question was answered by the AO against the Assessee. Aggrieved by the said order, the Assessee appealed to the CIT (Appeals). A specific issue before the CIT (Appeals) was the justification for the AO having added the amount paid by the Assessee to SMCL on account of royalty and fees for technical assistance. CIT (Appeals) came to the conclusion that by incurring the s....