M/s. Sangeetha Mobiles Private Limited, Bangalore V. The Addl. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

ITA 1185/BANG/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9296 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 06-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S SUNDAR RAJAN
• Assessee Lawyers: V SRINIVASAN
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 32

Judgement Text

ITA NOS.1185 & 1186(B)/2016 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRI BUNAL BANGALORE BENCH B, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1185 & 1186 (BANG) 2016 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2010 11 & 2011 12) M/S SANGEETHA MOBILES PVT. LTD., 37, SRUBUVASA NILAYA, SANNIDHI ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE - 560004 PAN : AAMCS5916J APPELLANT VS THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE 12, BANGALORE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI V. SRINIVASAN , C. A. REVENUE BY : SHRI S. SUNDAR RAJAN, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 18-10-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: : 03-11-2016 O R D E R PER SHRI A.K.GARODIA, AM BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THES E ARE DIRECTED AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS OF LEARNED CIT (A) 6 BE NGALURU, BOTH DATED 21.03.2016 FOR A. YS. 2010 11 & 2011 12. 2. BOTH THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE B EING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CO NVENIENCE. ITA NOS.1185 & 1186(B)/2016 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS IN BOTH YEARS BUT EFFECTIVE GRIEVANCES ARE ONLY TWO COMMON GRIEVANCES IN BOTH YEARS. FIRST GRIEVANCE IS ABOUT DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATI ON OF RS.131,30,361/- IN A.Y. 2010 11 AND RS. 229,78,13 1/- IN A. Y. 2011 12 BEING DEPRECIATION ON GOODWILL. THE SECOND GRI EVANCE IS ABOUT DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION OF RS. 890,704/- IN A. Y. 2010 11 AND RS. 565,953/- IN A. Y. 2011 12 BEING DEPRECIATIO N ON INTERIORS. THERE IS ONE MORE ISSUE IN A. Y. 2010 11 ONLY REG ARDING DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION OF RS. 404,253/- ON COMPUTER SOFTWA RE. 4. REGARDING THE FIRST ISSUE, IT IS SUBMITTED BY TH E LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE COPY OF ASSETS PURCHASE AGREE MENT IS AVAILABLE ON PAGES 78 TO 115 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND FROM THE S AME, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED VARIOUS TANGIB LE ASSETS AS LISTED ON PAGE 110 TO 111 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND DEPOSITS W ITH VARIOUS LANDLORDS OF RS. 63.14 LACS AS PER DETAILS ON PAGES 112 TO 113 OF THE PAPER BOOK IS ALSO TAKEN OVER BY THE ASSESSEE. HE S UBMITTED THAT IN ADDITION TO THIS, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO ACQUIRED TH E TRADE MARK WAVETEL ALONG WITH CORPORATE NAME, TRADE NAME, DO MAIN NAMES AND OTHER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS OF WAVE AS C AN BE SEEN ON PAGE 103 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THEREAFTER, HE DRAWN OUR ATT ENTION TO PAGE 102 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND SUBMITTED THAT THIS WAS ALSO AGREED THAT WAVE AND MR. V. F. JOHN YESUDHAS WILL NOT DO ANYTHING FO R 12 MONTHS, WHICH MAY BE DEEMED TO BE IN COMPETITION WITH THE B USINESS OF THE ITA NOS.1185 & 1186(B)/2016 ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER HE DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO PARA 4 OF THE AGREEMENT ON PAGES 87 & 88 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND PO INTED OUT THAT THE PURCHASE PRICE AGREED IS RS. 13 CRORES IN A COM BINED MANNER. THEN HE POINTED OUT THAT AT PAGES 125 & 126 OF THE PAPER BOOK IS THE INVOICE RAISED BY WAVE AND AS PER THE SAME, THE VAL UE OF TANGIBLE ASSETS IS RS. 179,69,104/- INCLUDING INTERIORS RS. 118,76,051 PLUS VAT. THEREAFTER, HE DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 3 O F THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHERE THE A.O. HAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S ACCOUNTED FOR RS. 63.14 LACS AS RENT DEPOSITS AND CLAIMED DEPRECI ATION ON FIXED ASSETS RS. 179,69,105/- AND ALSO CLAIMED DEPRECIATI ON ON GOODWILL RS. 1050,42,884/-. THEN HE SUBMITTED THAT AS PER TH E A. O., THE AMOUNT OF RS. 1050,42,884/- IS NOT GOODWILL BUT PAY MENT FOR ELIMINATING COMPETITION FROM WAVE COMMUNICATION AND IT IS NORMALLY TERMED AS FEE PAID FOR NON COMPETITION. FOR THIS, HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 8 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THEREA FTER HE SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE ASSESSEE, THIS PAYMENT OF RS. 1050. 43 LACS IS FOR GOODWILL BUT EVEN IF THE CONTENTION OF THE A. O. IS ACCEPTED THAT THIS IS NOT GOODWILL BUT NON COMPETE FEE THEN ALSO DEPRECIA TION IS ALLOWABLE AT SAME RATE I.E. APPLICABLE TO INTANGIBLE ASSETS. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF H ONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S INGE RSOLL RAND INTERNATIONAL IND. LTD. IN ITA NO. 452 OF 2013 DATE D 30.06.2004 (227 TAXMAN.COM 176), COPY ON PAGES 181 TO 205 OF THE PA PER BOOK. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT PARA 8 OF THIS JUDGMENT ON P AGES 200 TO 205 OF ITA NOS.1185 & 1186(B)/2016 THE PAPER BOOK IS RELEVANT AS PER WHICH IT IS HELD BY HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT THAT THE RIGHT ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON PAYMENT OF NON COMPETE FEES IS A COMMERCIAL OR A BU SINESS RIGHT WHICH IS SIMILAR IN NATURE TO KNOW HOW, PATENTS, COPYRIGHTS, LICENSES, FRANCHISES ETC AND IT FALLS IN THE CATEGO RY OF INTANGIBLE ASSETS AND CONSEQUENTLY DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE U/S 32 (1) (III). 5. AS AGAINST THIS, LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPO RTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOTED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A) IN PARA 14 OF HIS ORDER THAT IN THE REMAND REPORT (COPY ON PAGES 142 TO 144 OF THE PAPER BOOK), THE A .O. HAS DISTINGUISHED THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE WITH TH E FACTS IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S INGERSOLL RAND INTERNATIONAL IND. LTD. (SUPRA). AT THIS JUNCTURE, A QUERY WAS RAISED BY THE BENCH ASKING TH E LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE TO POINT OUT THE DIFFERENCE IN FACTS AS REPORTED BY THE AO IN THE REMAND REPORT. IN REPLY, LEARNED DR OF THE R EVENUE POINTED OUT THAT THE A.O. REPORTED THAT THE AO HAS REPRODUCED R ELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF HONBLE HIGH COURT AS PER WHICH, IN THAT CASE, THE RIGHT ACQUIRED BY WAY OF NON COMPETE CAN BE TRANSFE RRED TO ANY OTHER PERSON. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE RIGHTS ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF NON COMPETE CANNOT BE TRANSF ERRED TO ANY OTHER PERSON AND THEREFORE, THIS JUDGMENT IS NOT AP PLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE AND IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE DELHI ITA NOS.1185 & 1186(B)/2016 HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF SHARP BUSINESS S YSTEM VS. CIT, 254 CTR 233 IS APPLICABLE. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. REGARD ING THE ISSUE IN RESPECT OF ALLOWABILITY OF DEPRECIATION ON GOODWILL/NON COMPETE FEES, WE FIND THAT AS PER THE FACTS NOTED B Y HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN PARA 8 AS REPRODUCED BELOW, THE RIGHT ACQUIRED BY WAY OF NON COMPETE CAN BE TRANSFERRED T O ANY OTHER PERSON BUT IN THE CASE OF SHARP BUSINESS SYSTEM VS. CIT (SUPRA), HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT JUDGMENT IS ON THE BASIS O F THIS FACT OF THAT CASE THAT THE RIGHT ACQUIRED BY WAY OF NON COMPETE CANNOT BE TRANSFERRED TO ANY OTHER PERSON:- 8 . TH E REFORE WHAT I S T O B E SEE N IS , WH A T A R E TH E N A TUR E OF INT A N G IBLE A SS E T S WHI C H WOULD C ON S TITU T E BUSINESS OR COMMERCIAL RIGHTS TO B E ELI G IBL E F OR DEPR EC IATION. IN THIS R E G A RD, IT IS N E C E S S AR Y TO NO T I C E T H A T T H E INTAN G IBL E A SS E TS E NUM ERA T E D IN S EC . 32 OF T H E A CT E FF E CTI V EL Y CONF E R A RI G H T UPON A N ASSESSE E F OR C ARR YI N G ON A BU S INE S S MOR E E F FIC I E NTL Y B Y UTILIZIN G AN AVAI L A BL E KNOWL E D G E OR B Y CA RR YI N G ON A BUSIN E S S T O T H E E X C LUSION OF ANOTH E R A SS ESSEE. A NON- C OMP ETE R I G H T E N C O MP AS S E S A RI G H T UND E R W H IC H ON E P ERSON IS PROHIBITED FROM COMPETING IN BUSINESS WITH ANOTHER FO R A STIPULATED PERIOD . IT WOULD BE THE RIGHT OF THE PERSON TO CARRY ON A BUSINESS IN COMPETITION BUT FOR SUCH AGREEMENT OF NON-COMPETE . THEREFORE THE RIGHT ACQUIRED UNDER A ITA NOS.1185 & 1186(B)/2016 NON-COMPETE AGREEMENT IS A RIGHT FOR WHICH A VALUAB LE CONSIDERATION IS PAID. THIS RIGHT IS ACQUIRED SO AS TO ENSURE THAT THE RECIPIEN T OF THE NON-COMPETE FEE DOES NOT COMPETE IN ANY MARINER WITH THE BUSINESS IN WHICH HE WAS EARLIE R ASSOCIATED. THE OBJECT OF ACQUIRING A KNOW-HOW, PATENTS, COPYRIGHTS, TRADEMARKS, LICENCES, FRANCHISES IS TO CARRYON BUSINESS AGAINST RIVALS IN THE SAME BUSINESS IN A MORE EFFICIENT MANNER OR TO PUT IT DIFFERENTLY IN A BEST POSSIBLE MANNER . THE OBJECT OF E NTERING INTO A NON- COMPETE AGREEMENT IS ALSO THE SAME IE . , TO CARRY ON BUSINESS IN A MORE EFFICIENT MANNER BY AVOIDING COMPETITION, ATLEAST FOR A LIMITED PERIOD OF TIME . ON PAYMENT OF NON-COMPETE, THE PAYER ACQUIRES A BUNDL E OF RIGHTS SUCH AS RESTRICTING RECEIVER DIRECTLY OR INDIRE C TLY PARTIC I PATING IN A BUSIN E S S WHICH IS SIMILAR TO THE BUSINESS BEING ACQUIRED, FROM DIRECTLY O R INDIRECTLY SOLICITING OR INFLUENCING CLIENTS OR CUS TOM E RS OF T HE EXISTING BUSINESS OR ANY OTHER P E RSON EITHER NOT . TO DO BUSINESS WITH THE PERSON WHO HAS ACQUIRED THE BUSINESS AND PAID THE NON - COMPETE TEE OR TO DO BUSINESS WITH THE PER-SON RECEIVING THE NON-COMPETE FEE TO DO BUSINESS WITH A PERSON WHO IS DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY IN COMPETITION WITH THE BUSIN E SS WHICH IS BEING ACQUIRED. THE RIGHT IS ACQUIRED FOR CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS AND THEREFORE, T IS A BUSINESS RIGHT. THE WORD COMMERCAL IS DEFINED IN BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY AS RELATED TO OR CONNECTED WITH TRADE A ND COMMERCE IN GENERAL COMMERCE IS DEFINED AS THE EXCHANGE OF GOODS, PRODUCTIONS OR PROPERTY OF ANY KIND, THE BUYING, SELLING AND EXCHANGING OF ARTICLE S. A RIGHT BY WAY OF NON-COMPETE IS ACQUIRED ESSENTIALLY FOR TRADE AND COMMERCE AND THEREFORE, I T WILL ALSO QUALIFY AS A COMMERCIAL RIGHT. A RIGHT ITA NOS.1185 & 1186(B)/2016 ACQUIRED BY WAY OF NON-COMPETE CAN BE TRANSFERRED TO ANY OTHER PERSON IN THE SENSE THAT THE ACQUIRER GETS THE RIGHT TO ENFORCE THE PERFORMANCE OF THE TE RMS OF AGREEMENT UNDER WHICH A PERSON IS RESTRAINING THE OTHER BUSINESSMAN FROM COMPETING WITH THE ASSESSEE, HE GETS A VESTED . RIGHT WHICH CAN BE ENFORCED UNDER LAW ARID WITHOUT . THAT, THE OTH ER BUSINESSMAN CAN COMPETE WITH THE FIRST BUSINESSMA N . WHEN BY PAYMENT CF NON-COMPETE FEE, THE BUSINESSMAN G E TS HIS RIGHT W H AT BE IS PR A CTICALL Y GETTING IS KIND OF MONOPOL Y TO RUN HIS BUSIN E SS WITHOUT BOTHERING ABOUT THE COMPETITION. GENERALL Y , NON-COMPETE FEE IS PAID FOR A DEFINITE PERIOD . THE IDEA IS THAT BY THAT TIME , THE BUSINESS WOULD STAND FIRMLY ON ITS OWN FOOTING AND CAN SUSTAIN LATER ON. THIS CLEARLY SHOWS THAT HE COMMERCIAL RIGHT COMES INTO EXISTENCE WHENEVER THE ASSESSEE MAKES PAYMENT FOR NON-COMPETE FEE. THEREFORE, THAT RIGHT WHICH THE ASSESSEE ACQUIRES ON PAYMENT OF NON- COMPETE FEE CONFERS IN HIM A COMMERCIAL OR A BUSINESS RIGHT WHICH IS HELD O BE SIMILAR IN NATURE TO KNOW-HOW, PATENTS, COPYRIGHTS, TRADEMARKS, LICENCES, FRANCHISES. THEREFORE, THE COMMERCIAL RIG HT THUS ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE UNAMBIGUOUSLY FALLS IN THE CATEGORY OF AN INTANGIBLE ASSET. THEIR RI GHT TO CARRY ON BUSINESS WITHOUT COMPETITION HAS AN ECONOMIC INTEREST AND MONEY VALUE. THE TERM OR ANY OTHER BUSINESS OR COMMERCIAL RIGHTS OF SIMILAR NATU RE HAS TO BE INTERPRETED IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT WOULD HAVE SOME SIMILARITIES AS OTHER ASSETS MENTIONED IN CL(B) OF EXPLN.3. HERE THE DOCTRINE OF EJUSDEM GENERIS WOULD COME INTO OPERATION AND THEREFORE, TH E NON-COMPETE FEE VESTS A RIGHT IN THE ASSESSEE TO CARRY ON BUSINESS WITHOUT COMPETITION WHICH IN TURN ITA NOS.1185 & 1186(B)/2016 CONFERS A COMMERCIAL RIGHT TO CARRY ON BUSINESS SMOOTHLY. WHEN ONE THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR ACQUIRING THE SAID RIGHT IS HELD TO BE CAPITAL IN NATURE. CONSEQUENTLY, THE DEPRECIATION PROVIDED UNDER SEC.32(1)(II) IS ATTRACTED AND THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO THE DEDUCTION AS PROVIDED IN T HE SAID PROVISION I.E PRECISELY WHAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD. 7. NOW WE EXAMINE THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE TO SEE AS TO WHETHER THE RIGHTS ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF NON COMPETE CAN BE TRANSFERRED TO ANY OTHER PERSON OR NOT. WHEN WE CAREFULLY GO THROUGH THIS JUDGMENT IN FULL AND PARA 8 AS REPRODU CED ABOVE IN PARTICULAR, WE REACH TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE MAI N BASIS OF THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IS THIS TH AT ON PAYMENT OF NON COMPETE FEES, THE PAYER ACQUIRES A BUNDLE OF RI GHTS SUCH AS RESTRICTING RECEIVER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY PARTICI PATING IN A BUSINESS WHICH IS SIMILAR TO THE BUSINESS BEING ACQUIRED, FR OM DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY SOLICITING OR INFLUENCING CLIENTS OR CUS TOMERS OF THE EXISTING BUSINESS OR ANY OTHER PERSON EITHER NOT TO DO BUSIN ESS WITH THE PERSON WHO HAS ACQUIRED THE BUSINESS AND PAID NON C OMPETE FEES OR TO DO BUSINESS WITH A PERSON WHO IS DIRECTLY OR IND IRECTLY IN COMPETITION WITH THE BUSINESS WHICH IS BEING ACQUIR ED. THESE RIGHTS ARE HELD TO BE BUSINESS RIGHTS. THEREAFTER, IT IS N OTED BY HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT THAT THIS RIGHT CAN BE TRANSFE RRED TO ANY OTHER PERSON IN THE SENSE THAT THE ACQUIRER GETS THE RIGH T TO ENFORCE THE ITA NOS.1185 & 1186(B)/2016 PERFORMANCE OF THE TERMS OF AGREEMENT UNDER WHICH A PERSON IS RESTRAINED FROM COMPETING. IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO , IT IS SPECIFIED IN PARA 11 OF THE AGREEMENT PAGE 102 OF THE PAPER BOOK THAT UNLESS PERMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE I.E. SMPL, WAVE AND MR. V . F. JOHN YESUDHAS WILL NOT DO ANYTHING WHICH MAY AMOUNT TO C OMPETITION WITH THE PRESENT ASSESSEE. HENCE IN THE PRESENT CASE ALS O, THE ASSESSEE I.E. THE ACQUIRER GETS THE RIGHT TO ENFORCE THE PERFORMA NCE OF THE TERMS OF AGREEMENT UNDER WHICH THE SELLER WAVE AND MR. V. F. JOHN YESUDHAS INCLUDING THEIR ASSOCIATES, PARTNERS AND RELATIVES SHALL NOT COMPETE WITH THE ASSESSEE I.E. THE ACQUIRER. HENCE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE SIMILAR TO THE FA CTS IN THE CASE OF THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S INGERSOLL RAND INTERNATIONAL IND. LTD. (SUPRA) AND IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, THIS RIG HT ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE CAN BE TRANSFERRED TO ANY OTHER PERSON IN THE SENSE THAT THE ASSESSEE ACQUIRER GETS THE RIGHT TO ENFORCE THE PER FORMANCE OF THE TERMS OF AGREEMENT UNDER WHICH THE SELLER IS RESTRA INED FROM COMPETING. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THIS J UDGMENT, WE HOLD THAT EVEN IF THE RIGHT ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS HELD TO BE NON COMPETE RIGHT THEN ALSO, IT IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECI ATION U/S 32 (1) (III). REGARDING THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT ON WHICH RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED BY THE LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE I. E. THE JUDGMENT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF SHARP BUSINESS SYSTEM VS. C IT (SUPRA), WE HOLD THAT SINCE, WE ARE FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF H ONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, THE JUDGMENT OF ANY OTHE R HIGH COURT IS ITA NOS.1185 & 1186(B)/2016 NOT RELEVANT EVEN IF THE SAME IS CONTRARY TO THE JU DGMENT OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT BECAUSE WE ARE BOUND TO F OLLOW THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. HENC E, WE DO NOT EXAMINE THE APPLICABILITY OF THIS JUDGMENT. NOW, TH IS ASPECT HAS BECOME ACADEMIC AS TO WHETHER THE RIGHT ACQUIRED IS GOODWILL OR NON COMPETE RIGHT. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 2 IN BOTH YE ARS IS ALLOWED. 8. REGARDING THE SECOND ISSUE IN BOTH YEARS I.E. DI SALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION OF RS. 890,704/- IN A.Y. 2010 11 AND RS. 565,953/- IN A. Y. 2011 12 BEING DEPRECIATION ON INTERIORS AN D THIRD ISSUE IN A. Y. 2010 11 ONLY REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECI ATION OF RS. 404,253/- ON COMPUTER SOFTWARE, LEARNED AR OF THE A SSESSEE MADE VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS BUT THE LEARNED DR OF THE REVEN UE SUBMITTED THAT THESE ISSUES WERE NOT DECIDED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A ) AND HENCE, ON THESE ISSUES, THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED TO CIT (A) FOR HIS DECISION ON THESE ISSUES. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND WE FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE BECAUSE WE FIND THAT IN FACT, LEARNED CIT (A) HAS DECIDED ONLY ONE ISSUE IN BOTH YEARS I.E. THE ALLOWABILITY OF DEPRECIATION ON GOODWILL/N ON COMPETE FEES. HENCE ON THESE TWO ISSUES, WE RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) FOR HIS DECISION ON THESE ISSUES. ITA NOS.1185 & 1186(B)/2016 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED IN THE TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENT IONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- (SMT ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN SD/- (A.K. GARODIA) JUDICAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: BANGALORE: D A T E D : 03.11.2016 AM * COPY TO : 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT(A)-II BANGALORE 4 CIT 5 DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER AR, ITAT, BANGALORE ITA NOS.1185 & 1186(B)/2016 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER . 3. DATE ON WHICH THE AP PROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P. S. .. 4 DATE ON WHICH THE ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT .. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S. .. 6. DATE OF UPLOADING THE ORDER ON WEBSITE .. 7. IF NOT UPLOADED, FURNISH THE REASON FOR DOING SO . 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK .. 9. DATE ON WHICH ORDER DOES FOR XEROX & ENDORSEMENT . 10. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 11 THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER. 12 THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE DISPATCH SEC TION FOR DISPATCH OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER 13 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER ITA NOS.1185 & 1186(B)/2016 ITA NOS.1185 & 1186(B)/2016 ITA NOS.1185 & 1186(BANG)2016 15