Case LawHigh Court › M/S Escorts Employees Ancillaries Limite...

M/S Escorts Employees Ancillaries Limited Faridabad v. Additional Commissioner Ofincome Tax, Faridabad

High Court 15 Nov 2019 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
M/S Escorts Employees Ancillaries Limited Faridabad v. Additional Commissioner Ofincome Tax, Faridabad
Date of order
15 Nov 2019
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Allowed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In M/S Escorts Employees Ancillaries Limited Faridabad v. Additional Commissioner Ofincome Tax, Faridabad, the High Court (2019) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Issue: ITR No.167 of 1999 (O&M) (3) Whether ITAT was correct in law in denying deduction ofdepreciation on technical know-how payment made_ foacquisition ofdesigns and drawings?” None has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent- TEVeENUE We find that the present case is squarely covered by the judgm...

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
ITR No.167 of 1999 (O&M) odoe 377 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA|AT CHAN DIGAR ITR No.167 of 1999 (O&M)Date of Decision : 15.11.2019 M/s Escorts Employees Ancillaries Limited Faridabad ...... Appellant Versus Additional Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Faridabad ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARIHON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN /// Present :-Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. /// AJAY TEWARI, J. (QRAL) The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench “D”(hereinafter referred to as, the Tribunal) had forwarded the followingquestions of law for an answer :- “(1) Whether the ITAT was correct in law and in thefacts andin the facts and circumstances of the case in holding thatdeduction u/s 35AB could not be allowed in respect ofpayments made prior to 1.4.1986 and thereby denyingdeduction ofRs.1,26,944/- being 1/6[th]of Rs.7,61,666/-.(2) Whether ITAT was correct in law in not adjudicating uponthe alternate plea of the assessee which involved a pureinterpretation oflaw on admittedfacts? ITR No.167 of 1999 (O&M) (3) Whether ITAT was correct in law in denying deduction ofdepreciation on technical know-how payment made_ foacquisition ofdesigns and drawings?” None has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent- TEVeENUE We find that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court in ITR No.49 of 1998 decided on 10.01.2014, titled as Escorts Employees Ancillaries Ltd. Faridabad Vs. The Commissioner ofIncome-Tax Haryana, Rohtak. Counsel for the assessee is unable to cite any contrary judgment in this regard. Consequently, we dispose of the reference by answering thequestion of law in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc,Application, if any, also stands disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI)JUDGE 15.11.2019pooja sharma-l (ALKA SARIN )JUDGEJUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned,Yes/NoWhether reportable,Yes/No
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan