COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI vs. HUTCHINSON ESSAR TELECOM PVT. LTD.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . ITA 417/2013 . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI ..... Appellant . Through Mr. Anmol Sinha, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Deepak Anand, Jr. Standing Counsel, Mr. Anshum Kain and Mr. Rahul Kochar, Advocates. . versus . . . HUTCHINSON ESSAR TELECOM PVT. LTD...... Respondent . Through Mr. Salil Kapoor with Mr. Vikas Jain, Advocate. . CORAM: . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA . O R D E R . 21.08.2013 . CM No.12657/2013 (exemption) . Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. . CM No.12658/2013 (delay) . For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 15 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. . ITA 417/2013 . Issuing of notice is limited to issue No.1 i.e. . ? Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal fell into error in holding that variable licence fee paid by the respondent/assessee was revenue expenditure?? . . . The aforesaid question will include the question whether Section 35ABB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is applicable to the licence fee payments? . The second issue with regard to disallowance of interest as the respondent assessee had granted interest free loan to the subsidiary company, is covered against the Revenue vide decision of the Supreme Court in SA Builders vs. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1 and this Court in Bharat Televentures Ltd. (SC) 331 ITR 502 (Del). The finding recorded by the Tribunal is that the respondent/assessee had adequate sources to make advances to the subsidiary company out of non-interest bearing funds and the loan given was for business consideration. . Filing of printed paper books is dispensed with. . We have already heard arguments in a similar matter and judgment is reserved. . In these circumstances, we post the appeal for hearing and final disposal on 11th September, 2013. . . . . . SANJIV KHANNA, J . . . . . SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J . AUGUST 21, 2013/st . . . $ 38 .