Need Tally
for Clients?

Contact Us! Here

  Tally Auditor

License (Renewal)
  Tally Gold

License Renewal

  Tally Silver

License Renewal
  Tally Silver

New Licence
  Tally Gold

New Licence
 
Open DEMAT Account with in 24 Hrs and start investing now!
« From the Courts »
Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs
 Inordinate delay in income tax appeal hearings
 Income Tax leviable on Tuition Fee in the Year of Rendering of Services: ITAT
 Supreme Court invoked its power under Article 142 of Constitution to validate notices issued under section 148 as notices issued under section 148A. However the same shall be subject to amended provisions of section 149.
 ITAT refuses to stay tax demand on former owner of Raw Pressery brand
 Bombay HC sets aside rejection of refund claims by GST authorities
 [Income Tax Act] Faceless Assessment Scheme does not take away right to personal hearing: Delhi High Court
 Rajasthan High Court directs GST Authority to Unblock Input Tax Credit availed in Electronic Credit Ledger
 Sebi-taxman fight over service tax dues reaches Supreme Court
 Delhi High Court Seeks Status Report from Centre for Appointments of Chairperson & Members in Adjudicating Authority Under PMLA
 Delhi High Court allows Income Tax Exemption to Charitable Society running Printing Press and uses Profit so generated for Charitable Purposes
 ITAT accepts Lease Income as Business Income as Business Investments were mostly in nature of Properties

Acquisition of marketing rights is depreciable asset - Interest paid on loan taken for acquisition to be added to cost of capital asset - Front-end fee paid to bank not allowable but depreciation cannot be denied : ITAT
July, 16th 2007

The larger question here is how to treat the expenditure incurred for acquisition of marketing? Whether intangible assets are depreciable or not? And if yes, then interest paid on loan taken for acquisition of such assets is to be treated as revenue expenditure or capital expenditure ? These were the questions which came up before the Tribunal in this case and the ITAT held that acquisition of distribution rights is in nature of commercial rights and thus depreciable and secondly intangile assets are capital assets and thus depreciable. Also interest on loan taken
for acquisition of such assets will be added to cost of capital asset if the asset is not put to use before payment of interest and not otherwise.

Brief Facts :

The Assessee is a incorporated Co. formed as joint venture between Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises (ASL) and Cadilla Healthcare Ltd. (CHL) for manufacture and selling of animal and health care products.
Assessee in its first year of production claimed deduction of Rs.2 cr representing distribution franchise (marketing rights) fee paid to ASL and approximately Rs.59lacs as front end fee (interest) paid on loan taken for acquisition of intangible assets. A.O. asked the assessee to justify the expenditure in first case i.e.Rs.2cr to which it explained that it was made to ASL for acquiring exclusive use of marketing rights held by them in India and Nepal for products
manufactured by one ABIC Ltd. of Israel. A.O. being not satisfied by the explaination disallowed the same. With respect to deduction in second case, A.O. held that loan was taken for acquisition of intangible assets which were not put to use before payment of interest, thus interest is to be treated as capital expenditure and not revenue expenditure and in light of this held that depreciation is not allowable on intangible capital assets. Thus A.O. disallowed
deduction on both the counts.

In appeal CIT(A) went with the reasoning of A.O. thereby upholding his order.

Finally matter was taken to Tribunal which decided the issue after deliberating on following issues :

a) Whether assessee is right in claiming the above mentioned deduction as revenue expenditure,

b) If the claim is to be disallowed then is assessee's alternative claim for treating the same as capital expenditure and thus allowing depreciation u/s 32(1) justified ?

The Tribunal held that With respect to expenditure on account of acquisition of exclusive
marketing rights from ASL, Tribunal came to a finding that it wasn't a sham transaction but was acted upon. Secondly marketing rights are intangible rights in the nature of commercial rights mentioned in Sec.32(1)(ii) and thus depreciable u/s 32. Thus it held that assessee could claim depreciation on the said amount u/s 32(1) being a capital expenditure.

Coming to the second expenditure, Tribunal held that it was done on account of interest paid on loan used for acquisition of capital assets which were not put to use before payment of interest, therefore interest is to be added to cost of capital assets and treated as capital expenditure. It held that depreciation is allowable u/s 32(1) in respect of intangible capital assets and since assessee has made capital expenditure to acquire intangible capital asset, it is to be allowed depreciation u/s 32(1).

Thus Tribunal partly allowed the appeal of assessee by allowing depreciation u/s 32(1), expenditures being in the nature of capital expenditure for acquisition of intangible capital assets.

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2024 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting