COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMWAY INDIA ENTERPRISES

PDF · subscribers
ITA/484/2011HC Delhi04 November 20113 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issues were covered by its previous judgments in similar cases. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose for consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee incurred expenses on software purchase and improvement of leasehold premises. The Tribunal had remanded these issues to the Assessing Officer for verification.

What were the issues?

Whether expenses on software purchase and leasehold improvements were capital in nature and whether the Tribunal erred in remanding the matter.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA 484/2011

Page 1 of 3

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment reserved on: 13.09.2011 %

Judgment delivered on: 04.11.2011

ITA No. 484/2011

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

...... APPELLANT

M/S AMWAY INDIA ENTERPRISES

..... RESPONDENT

Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant: Mr Abhishek Maratha and Ms. Anshul Sharma For the Respondent: Mr M.S. Syali, Sr. Advocate with Ms Mahua Kalra, Ms. Husnal Syali and Mr. Rahul Sateeja

CORAM :- HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

1.

Whether the Reporters of local papers may

be allowed to see the judgment ?

2.

To be referred to Reporters or not ?

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported

in the Digest ?

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

1.

The captioned appeal pertains to the assessment year 2003-2004. In this appeal, the following issues arise for consideration :- (i). Whether expenses incurred by the assessee in the sum of Rs.13,55,597/- on purchase of software application were in the nature of capital expenses. (ii). Whether expenses incurred in the sum of Rs.1,47,71,172/- incurred on improvement of 2011:DHC:5595-DB

ITA 484/2011

Page 2 of 3

leasehold premises were in the nature of capital expenditure? If so, whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short, the „Tribunal‟) erred in remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer for verification of the expenses incurred.

2.

In so far as Issue no.(i) is concerned, we have noticed that an expenditure of Rs.13,55,597/- was incurred on account of software license purchased. 3. The Tribunal remanded this issue for decision by the Assessing Officer in terms of the judgment of the Special Bench. In our opinion, the matter now stands concluded by our judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/s Asahi India Safety Glass Ltd. in ITA Nos. 1110/2006 & 1111/2006.

4.

As regards Issue no.(ii), the expenses incurred towards improvement of leasehold premises which were situated at Mumbai, Calcutta (now Kolkata) and Bangalore were incurred on the following items :- “flooring work, false ceiling, erection of temporary partition, painting work and change of sanitary fittings, etc.” 5. We find even this issue is covered by our judgment in the case of Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs M/s Amway India Enterprises in ITA Nos. 1344/2009 and 1363/2009.

2011:DHC:5595-DB

ITA 484/2011

Page 3 of 3

6.

In view of the above, no question of law arise for our consideration and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There shall, however, be no orders as to costs.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,J NOVEMBER 04, 2011

yg 2011:DHC:5595-DB

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →