DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PPAP AUTOMOTIVES LTD., NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5009/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 June 2018AY 2012-134 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by its earlier orders for previous assessment years, where similar disallowances were deleted. The Tribunal also noted that the Revenue's appeal for a subsequent year on similar grounds had been dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer disallowed 25% of royalty payments made by the assessee for training and technical know-how, treating it as capital expenditure. The assessee contended that similar disallowances in previous years were deleted by the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether royalty payments for training and technical know-how constitute capital expenditure. Whether the Tribunal's previous decisions on similar disallowances bind the current assessment year.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Not explicitly mentioned

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES “A” : DELHI

Before: SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI & SHRI L.P. SAHU

Hearing: 22.05.2018Pronounced: 01.06.2018

This appeal by Revenue has been directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-7, Delhi, dated 19th May, 2015, for the A.Y. 2012-2013, challenging the deletion of addition of Rs.45,25,620/- on account of payment of royalty.

2 ITA.No.5009/Del./2015 M/s. PPAP Automotives Ltd., New Delhi.

2.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that A.O. disallowed the above amount being 25% of the expenditure incurred towards ‘Royalty’ by holding it as capital expenditure. The A.O. stated that assessee had made payment of Rs.1.81 crores as royalty to Tokai Kogyo Co. Ltd. This was on account of Training and Education and Technical knowhow. 25% of the expenditure was disallowed by the A.O. in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Switchgear Co. Ltd., vs. CIT 232 ITR 259. The assessee submitted before Ld. CIT(A) in A.Ys. 2005-2006, 2006-2007 and 2008-2009 that the similar addition made have been deleted by the Tribunal. In A.Ys. 2009- 2010, 2010-2011 and 2011-2012, the Ld. CIT(A) has followed the decision of the Tribunal and deleted the entire addition. The Ld. CIT(A) following these orders, deleted the addition.

3.

Learned Counsel for the Assessee, at the outset, submitted that the Revenue preferred appeal before the Tribunal on similar grounds for A.Y. 2011-2012 in ITA.No.5713/Del./2016 which have been dismissed vide order

3 ITA.No.5009/Del./2015 M/s. PPAP Automotives Ltd., New Delhi. dated 26.10.2017, by following the earlier orders for A.Ys. 2006- 2007 and 2008-2009, the Departmental Appeal has been dismissed. Copy of the order is placed on record which has not been disputed by the Ld. D.R.

4.

In view of the above, we are of the view that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the Order of the Tribunal for earlier years referred to above as well as recently the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue for the A.Y. 2011- 2012 vide order dated 26.10.2017 (supra). The Departmental Appeal fails and is dismissed.

5.

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →