TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 891
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the ITAT is right in deleting the disallowance 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 d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sioner of Income Tax v. Ferromatice Milacron India (P.) Limited (2018) 99 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 32(1)(ii) of the Act preceding the term "business or commercial rights of 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 comp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Tax,Panaji Goa v. Phil Corpn. Limited (202 Taxmann 368 (Bombay) held that the Assessee was entitled to deductionof interest on overdraft under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act when the investment was made by the Assessee in shares of subsidiary of the company to have control over the said company. Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai v. Shriram Investments (Firm) Moogambika Complex, Chennai (229 Taxman 179 (Madras) has taken similar view. Similar opinion is expressed by Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Rajeeva Lochan Kanoria ((1994) 208 ITR 616 (1995) 80 Taxmann 572 (Cal.). Similar view was also expressed by Delhi High Court in case of Eicher Gooderarth Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax (233 Taxmann 285....