TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 681
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9 respectively. 2. Both the appeals filed by the assessee are delayed by 165 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal due to outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic and accordingly, the delay is condoned and admitted the appeals for adjudication. 3. The first common ground raised in both the appeals relates to confirmation of disallowance of depreciation on intellectual property rights, being software used in the business of the assessee. 4. Brief facts leading to the ground are that the assessee has claimed depreciation on intellectual property rights. However, the assessee has not proved that the intellectual property right has been purchased from Shri R. Srinivasan, MD, by producing evidence. Since there is no evidence in the agreeme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r issued by M/s. Satyam Computers dated 18.10.2005 that iAllwayTM MIFS Server License has been acquired and the IPR has been used in the assessee company business for a period of 12 months, which falls under the assessment year of 2007-08. Once the depreciation on IPR is not in dispute, there is clear cut evidence of purchase order is on the record and moreover, the iAllwayTM Server License was used in the assessee company business, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation as claimed by the assessee for the assessment year 2007-08. 5.2 So far as claim of depreciation on IPR for the assessment year 2008-09 is concerned, in the remand report, the Assessing Officer has sta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icer has observed that in respect of loan receipt entry was found in the ledger copy but corresponding entry for an amount of Rs..2,48,000/- was not available in both the above two bank accounts of Shri R. Srinivasan. Since the assessee has not produced proof for the sum of Rs..2,48,000/-, the ld. CIT(A) has restricted the addition to the extent of Rs..2,48,000/- against the total unsecured loan of Rs..20,50,857/-. 6.2 Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that against the total unsecured loan of Rs..20,50,857/-, the assessee has furnished nearly 89% of the details and could not furnish the evidence only to the extent of Rs..2,48,000/- for the reason that the assessee has misplaced and unable to trace it out and praye....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is also routed through this account only which was also reflected in the annexure to the tax audit report. However, the Assessing Officer has not accepted in the remand report and thereby, the ld. CIT(A) has restricted the addition to the extent of Rs..5,00,000/-, against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7.1 We have considered the rival contentions. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has by referring to the appellate order in para 5.5 against the addition on account of cash deposits to the tune of Rs..5,66,000/-, wherein, the ld. CIT(A) has accepted the submissions of the assessee about receipt of loan of Rs..5,00,000/- from M/s. Shreyas Investment through Shri R. Srinivasan and its repayment along with interest through....