आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘डी’’ (cid:586)ायपीठ चे(cid:580)ई म७।

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय ঒ी मनोज कु मार अঁवाल ,लेखा सद(cid:735) एवं

माननीय ঒ी मनु कु मार िगौर, (cid:586)ाियक सद(cid:735) के सम঴।

BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.41/Chny/2021 (िनधा१रणवष१ / Assessment Year: 2007-2008)

Cavinkare Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of No.12, Poonthamallee Road, Income Tax, Ekkattuthangal, Chennai 600 032. Central Circle 2(1)

Chennai.

[PAN: AAACB 3754B]

(अपीलाथ(cid:568)/Appellant) ((cid:292)×यथ(cid:568)/Respondent)

: Shri. T. Banusekar, Advocate अपीलाथ(cid:568) क(cid:551) ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri. A. Sasikumar, CIT (cid:292)×यथ(cid:568) क(cid:551) ओर से /Respondent by : 15.01.2025 सुनवाई क(cid:551) तार(cid:547)ख/Date of Hearing : 31.01.2025 घोषणा क(cid:551) तार(cid:547)ख /Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R PER MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (A), Chennai-18 [In short ‘CIT’(A)] in ITA No.58/17-18, dated 07.01.2021. The assessment was framed by the ACIT, Company Circle-I(3), Chennai for the assessment year 2007-08 u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’), vide order dated 31.12.2009.

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

‘’1. For that the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case to the extent prejudicial to the interest of the appellant and at any rate is opposed to the principles of equity. natural justice and fair play.

2. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the order of the Assessing Officer is without jurisdiction.

3. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 14A read with Rule 8D are not invocable in the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance u/s. 14A to the extent of dividend income earned during the year under consideration i.e. Rs.5,01,000/-

5. For that without prejudice to the above, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have restricted the disallowance to 2% of dividend income earned during the year under consideration.

6. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the disallowance of depreciation of Rs.42, 18,750/- claimed on non-compete fee.

7. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in concluding that there is no transfer of division as per the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

& hence depreciation on non-compete fee is not allowable.

8. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) clearly contemplated payment of non-compete fee of Rs.3 crores as a part of the total consideration for the acquisition of the trademark "RUCHI".

9. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the denial of weighted deduction u/s.35 of Rs.22,36,827/- claimed on motor car depreciation.

10. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact that the vehicle was exclusively used by the scientist who work in the R&D unit.

11. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.47,70,078/- to the book profits u/s 115JB without appreciating that provision for performance linked incentive represents provision for ascertained liability.

12. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not granting relief with respect to addition made of Rs.41,42,500/- to the book profits u/s.115JB being provision for contingent liabilities reversed and credited to Profit & Loss account.

13. For that the appellant objects to the alteration of MAT credit u/s. 115JAA

14. For that the appellant objects to the levy of interest under sections 234C and 23