COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. TEI TECHNOLOGIES P.LTD.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . ITA 568/2010 . . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through : Ms Prem Lata Bansal . versus . . TEI TECHNOLOGIES P.LTD. ..... Respondent Through : None. . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN . . O R D E R 13.05.2010 . . . CM 5234/2010 . Allowed, subject to just exceptions. . ITA 568/2010 . This appeal is directed against the order dated 6.2.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in respect of the assessment year 2003-2004 The issue sought to be raised before us is whether the technical support fee amounting to Rs 1,32,05,273/- paid by the assessee to Elentec Company Courier and Tyco Investments Limited, Mauritius were in the nature of revenue or capital expenditure. The Assessing Officer held the same to be of a capital nature. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) relying upon the Tribunal?s order in respect of the assessment year 2001-2002 held the same to be of revenue nature. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, in turn, relied on its earlier order in respect of the assessment year 2001-2002 and confirmed the view taken by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals). The revenue preferred an appeal before this Court in respect of the Tribunal?s order pertaining to the assessment year 2001-2002 and the said appeal was numbered as ITA 909/2007. The same came up for hearing before this Court on 19.2.2008, when, placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Empire Jute Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, [1980] 124 ITR 1, this Court found that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had returned concurrent findings of fact and the same did not require any interference. This Court held that no substantial question of law arose for its consideration. Following the said decision dated 19.02.2008, in respect of the earlier year, the present appeal is also dismissed. . BADAR DURREZ AHMED,J . . V.K. JAIN, J MAY 13, 2010/?sn? . . $ 3