Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements

Home › All Judgements › CLC & Sons vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi Special Bench)

CLC & Sons vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi Special Bench)

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 8, 2010 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Click here to download the judgement (clc_special_bench_neutral_member.pdf)

In the interest of judicial discipline, a Member who has taken a view should not be party to a Special Bench

A 3 Member Special Bench was constituted to decide whether the assessee was entitled to claim depreciation u/s 32 on intangible assets termed ‘Goodwill’. At the hearing, the assessee raised a preliminary objection that as the Judicial Member on the Special Bench has already taken a view about allowability of depreciation on goodwill in the case of Bharatbhai J. Vyas vs. ITO 97 ITD 248 (Ahd.) judicial discipline requires that this Special Bench should consist of persons who have not already taken a view.

Pursuant to this, the Judicial Member expressed the opinion that having already taken a view on the issue of allowability of depreciation on goodwill, it will be in the interest of judicial discipline to recuse himself from the hearing of the appeal before the Special Bench.

Note: In Harsha Bhogle 114 TTJ 266 (Mum) it was held that reference to Special Bench is not permitted when appeal is pending before the High Court. For the law on depreciation on intangible assets, see Piem Hotels vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

Related Judgements

  1. ACIT vs. Prakash I. Shah (ITAT Mumbai) (Special Bench) 

    However, where such gain relates to exports made in an earlier year, the deuction u/s 80HHC is allowable only in the year in which the exports are made and not in the year of realisation of the gain.
    Read more ›
  2. Topman Exports vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai Special Bench) 

    Expl. (baa) to S. 80HHC defines the term “profits of the business” to mean the profits under the head “profits and gains” as reduced by 90% of the sum referred to in s. 28 (iiid). The 2nd & 3rd Provisos to s. 80HHC (3) provide that the profits computed…
  3. Anil Kumar Bhatia vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) 

    S. 153A does not authorize the making of a de novo assessment. While under the 1st Proviso, the AO is empowered to frame assessment for six years, under the 2nd Proviso, only the assessments which are pending on the date of initiation of search abate. The effect is that…
  4. DDIT vs. SET Satellite (Singapore) (ITAT Mumbai) 

    Assuming the payment for obtaining cricket telecast rights is “royalty”, under the first limb of Article 12(7) of the DTAA, royalties can be said to have arisen in India only if the payer is a resident of India. This condition is not fulfilled as the assessee was a non-resident….
  5. Krung Thai Bank PCL vs. JDIT (ITAT Mumbai) 

    S. 115 JB can only come into play when the assessee is required to prepare its profit and loss account in accordance with the provisions of Parts II and III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act. The starting point of computation of minimum alternate tax u/s 115 JB…

Discover more from itatonline.org

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading