TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 891
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce of depreciation claim on the non-compete fees paid when it is clear that it does not represent any intangible asset qualified for the depreciation as per Section 32 of the I.T. Act, 1961 ? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT is right in deleting the disallowance of interest on the borrowed funds when the Assessee had not demonstrated whether the purpose for which advance were made is covered by the principle of commercial expediency and also the investment was made for acquiring the controlling interest in the associate concern ? (c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT is right in deleting the disallowance of interest on the borrowed funds given t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... taxmann.com 154 (Gujarat). It was also the case where the Assessee had incurred expenditure pursuant to the noncompete agreement and claimed depreciation on such asset. While dismissing the Revenue's Appeal against the Judgment of the Tribunal, following observations were made : "We may recall the Assessing Officer does not dispute that the expenditure was capital in nature since by making such expenditure, the assessee had acquired certain enduring benefits. He was, however, of the opinion that to claim depreciation, the assessee must satisfy the requirement of Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, in which Explanation 3 provides that for the purpose of the said sub-section the expression "assets" would mean ( as per clause (b) ) intangible....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... similar nature" it is seen that intangible assets are not of the same kind and are clearly distinct from one another. The legislature thus did not intend to provide for depreciation only in respect of the specified intangible assets but also to other categories of intangible assets which may not be possible to exhaustively enumerate. It was concluded that the assessee who had acquired commercial rights to sell products under the trade name and through the network created by the seller for sale in India were entitled to deprecation. In the present case, Mr.Patel was erstwhile partner of the assessee. The assessee had made payments to him to ward of competence and to protect its existing business. Mr.Patel, in turn, had agreed not to solic....