2017 (11) TMI 1862

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... represented on behalf of the assessee. 3. It was submitted by the Ld.AR that the assessee has raised 5 grounds in its appeal. It was a submission that the assessee was only pressing Ground Nos.2 to 2.5 which was against the action of the Ld.CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance made by the AO in relation to claim of depreciation on intangible asset representing the goodwill/customer list. It was a submission that the assessee is in the business of providing Pest Control Services. It was a submission that during the AY 2009-10, the assessee had with the objective of expanding its business, had acquired the businesses of 7 other companies under Business Transfer Agreements (BTA). The assessee company had capitalized the payments in respec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n 264 CTR 187, non-compete fee has been held to be a right as an intangible asset entitled to depreciation u/s.32. It was a further submission that neither the term customer list nor non-compete fee was defined in Sec.32. It was a submission that Sec.92B(2)(ii)(f) however defined intangible asset to include the customer list and sub-clause (g) to include non-compete fee. It was a submission that as the customer list as claimed by the assessee and non-compete fee as held by the AO were both intangible assets, in view of the provisions of Sec.32, the assessee was entitled to the claim of depreciation. 4. In reply, the Ld.DR vehemently supported the order of the Ld.CIT(A) & the AO. It was a submission that Sec.92B was in relation to internat....