CIT vs. SHRIRAM PISTONS & RINGS LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/1213/2011HC DelhiDLHC01130242201116 February 2012Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court did not admit the appeal on the commission issue, citing a previous order. For the software expenditure, the court upheld the ITAT's remand to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, deeming it appropriate.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order concerning assessment year 2003-04. The appeal raised two questions: payment of commission and software expenditure.

What were the issues?

The primary issues were whether software expenditure was revenue or capital, and the treatment of commission payments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Not specified

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

$~14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 1213/2011 Date of decision: 16th February, 2012

CIT

..... Appellant

Through: Mr. Sanjeev Rajpal, Adv.

versus

SHRIRAM PISTONS & RINGS LTD .... Respondent Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra with Ms. Kavita Jha & Mr. Vijay Kumar Punna

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

SANJIV KHANNA, J.: (ORAL)

C.M. APPL. No.20419/2011 (for delay) in ITA No.1213/2011

This is an application for condonation of delay of 36 days in re-filling the present appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in re-filling is condoned.

The application stands disposed of. ITA 1213/2011 1. This appeal by the Revenue pertains to the assessment year 2003-04 and impugns the order dated 25.02.2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (tribunal, for short). 2. Two questions of law have been raised in these appeals. The first question relates to payment of commission. We have not admitted the appeal of the revenue on the said aspect for the assessment year 2004-05, in ITA No.

45/2012 vide order dated 16th February, 2012. For the same reasons, we are not inclined to admit the present appeal on the said question. 3. The second question raised in present appeal relates to software expenditure and whether the same was revenue expense or capital expense. The tribunal has remanded the matter to the Assessing officer for fresh decision in view of the ratio and law expounded by the special bench of the tribunal in Amway India Enterprises vs. DCIT, 114 TTJ 476. The tribunal has observed that fair and reasonable opportunity should be given to assessee to furnish details and explain their contention. 4. We note that a Division Bench of this court has examined the said question in ITA No. 1110-1111/2006, CIT vs. M/s Asahi India Safety Glass Ltd. decided on 4th November, 2011. The nature and character of software on which expense was incurred has to be examined and ascertained, before deciding the said question. In these circumstances we are not inclined to admit present appeal on the second issue. The order of remit does not merit interference. The appeal is dismissed. No costs. SANJIV KHANNA, J

R.V.EASWAR, J FEBRUARY 16, 2012/hs

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →