AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (3) TMI 883
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9; instead of 'Income from House Property' without appreciating the decision of Apex Court in the cases of CIT v/s. National Storage Pvt. Ltd. and Shambhu Investment Pvt. Ltd.? (b) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in allowing 100% depreciation on fork lift and without appreciating the fact that the fork lift is not registered as a vehicle under the Motor Vehicles Act? (c) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the claim of the assessee under Section 80IB should not be reduced by allocating H. O. expenses to the eligible unit? (d) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the ambit of the Income Tax Act? (i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding the expenditure incurred for advertisement as revenue in nature without appreciating the fact that the assessee becomes owner of the advertisement films, which are reusable for an indefinite period of time? (j) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is justified in deleting the penalty imposed without appreciating the fact that the Tribunal itself confirmed the disallowance of depreciation and further directed the Assessing Officer to treat the same as 'Income from Other Sources'? 2 So far as Question (b) is concerned, the CIT(A) as well as Tribunal ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es of the company is to be allocated amongst all the units. The Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that so far as R & D expenses are concerned, when the expenses incurred by each unit could be determined in view of the manner in which accounts are maintained, it would not be proper to estimate the expenses and allocate it amongst all the units. The Tribunal in its order has allowed the claim of the Respondent­ Assesee by following its order for the Assessment Year 1995­96. The Tribunal in its order for the Assessment Year 1995­96 while dealing with Medok Unit has held that the unit has maintained separate accounts from which it could be easily found out whether the expenditure had been incurred in relation to the Medok Unit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the decision of the Tribunal is based on finding of fact, we see no reason to entertain Question(d). 5 So far as Question (e) is concerned, the Tribunal by the impugned order has allowed the professional fees paid for trademark protection within the meaning of Section 37(1) of the said Act. The grievance of the Revenue is that the aforesaid deduction as revenue expenditure should not have been allowed as the Respondent ­Assessee was not the owner of the trademark. The Tribunal by the impugned order referred to the terms of the agreement which clearly provide that the Respondent­ Assessee had to bear the expenses for protecting the trademark. It is undisputed position that the Respondent­ Assessee would derive benefit by protec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the Assessment Year 1996­97. The Tribunal extracts a part of order passed in the case of M/s. Procter & Gamble Distribution Co. Ltd. for the Assessment Year 1999­00 on identical issue where reliance is placed upon the order passed in the Respondent­ Assessee's case for the Assessment Year 1996­97. We are informed by the Counsel for the Revenue that the order of the Tribunal for the Assessment Year 1996­97 with regard to this issue viz: deduction on account of destruction of obsolete stock­in­trade has not been challenged before a higher forum by the Revenue. In view of the above, we see no reason to entertain Question (h). 9 So far as Question (i) is concerned, Counsel for the parties state that the iss....