TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 1318
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he appeals viz., (i) the ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing 25% of royalty payment as capital expenditure and the balance 75% as revenue expenditure and (ii) the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of marketing service fees paid to India Piston Ltd. 2. The crux of the facts leading the issue of payment of royalty are that the assessee has made lumpsum payments to M/s. Nippon Piston Rings Ltd. for the acquisition of technical know-how license and has been continuing to pay royalty based on the actual usage of the license. The company capitalized the lumpsum payments towards the acquisition of technical know-how during the year in which they were acquired. The continuing royalty/running royalty is being paid based on the actual usage of license, calculated at a fixed percentage on net sales. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee and treated it as a capital expenditure, allowing depreciation at the rate of 25 percent. 2.1 The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) for both the assessment years. By following the decision of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for earlier assessment years, the ld. CIT(A) has directed the Asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... relief to the assessee. So far as the facts of the case in hand and point at issue decided by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Southern Switchgears Ltd. (supra) is concerned, it is almost identical and such decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court has further been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case of Southern Switchgears Ltd. (supra) and the ld. CIT(A) has followed such decision to give part relief to the assessee and no distinguishing feature has been pointed by the ld. DR in this regard. Therefore, while concurring with the finding and the conclusion of the ld. CIT(A) in this regard, we uphold his action and dismiss this ground in all the appeals of the Revenue as well as of assessee." 2.5 Both the Department as well as the assessee could not controvert the above findings of the Tribunal by filing any higher Court's decision having modified or reverted. Hence, respectfully following the above decision of the Tribunal in assessee's own case (supra), we confirm the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue and dismiss the ground raised in both the appeals by the Revenue as well as assessee. 3. The next ground raised in the appeals of the Revenue....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is case, with regard to the claim of balance additional depreciation, by relying on the decision in the case of Lakshmi Technology and Engineering Industries Ltd. v. DCIT in I.T.A. No. 492/Mds/2015 dated 26.04.2016, the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance made on this count. In the case of Lakshmi Technology and Engineering Industries Ltd. v. DCIT (supra), the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal followed its own decision in the case of Automotive Coaches & Components Ltd. v. DCIT in I.T.A. No. 1789/Mds/2014 for the assessment year 2008-09 vide order dated 12.02.2016, wherein, the decisions of the Cochin Benches of the Tribunal in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. ACIT (supra) or the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Rittal India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) were followed by the Chennai Benches of the Tribunal to arrive at a conclusion that the assessee is entitled to claim 50% of additional depreciation in the succeeding year when the plant and machinery was put in use for less than 180 days in the preceding previous year. 3.6 With regard to the reliance placed by the ld. DR in the case of MM Forgings Ltd. (supra), by considering section 32(1) as well as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... depreciation in the subsequent assessment year. In view of the above ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of M.M. Forgings Ltd. (supra), relied on by the ld. DR cannot be applied because, by respectfully agreeing with the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Rittal India (P.) Ltd., in a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Brakes India Ltd. v. DCIT in T.C.A. No. 551 of 2013 dated 14.03.2017 decided similar issue in favour of the assessee by holding that the Division Bench of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of M.M. Forgings Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (supra) was not concerned with the issue. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the ld. CIT(A) has rightly followed the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Lakshmi Technology and Engineering Industries Ltd. v. DCIT (supra) and directed the Assessing Officer to allow the additional depreciation as claimed by the assessee. Hence, the ground raised by the Revenue for both the assessment years is dismissed. I.T.A. Nos. 2667 & 2668/Mds/2016 4. The first common ground raised in both t....