CIT v. India Visit.com (P) Ltd.

TATA TELESERVICES LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 25(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.2549/Del./2024, A.Y. 2017-18 Tata Teleservices Limited Assistant Commissioner Of Jeevan Bharati Tower-1, Income Tax, Circle-25(1), 10Th Floor, Vs. C. R. Building, I. P. Estate, 24, Connaught Circus New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaact2438A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Advocate Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advocate & Sh. Shivam Yadav, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 30/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/10/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal Of The Assessee For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.03.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

…on cost/expenditure was not a capital expenditure. Further, reliance was placed on decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd. [(1980) 3 Taxmann.com 69] and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Indian Visit.com (P.) Ltd. (219 CTR 603). 5. The Ld. Counsel submitted that learned CIT(A), relying on decisions of Tribunal in the cases of India Capital Markets (P) Ltd. and SKS Micro Finance Ltd. (AO also relied on these case laws), held that customer base was an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act though these decisions were not applicable…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7, DELHI vs. TIMES INTERNET LIMITED

…ITA 579/2023 Page 1 of 8 $~33 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Decision delivered on: 13.10.2023 + ITA 579/2023 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7, DELHI ..... Appellant Through: Mr Puneet Rai, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr Nikhil Jain, Adv. versus TIMES INTERNET LIMITED ..... Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL): CM No.53514/2023 [Appl…

MAKEMYTRIP (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2006-07

…the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld AO has erred in proposing and the Hon'ble DRP has further erred in not considering the jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax IV vs. India Visit.com private Limited (219 CTR 603) wherein the expenditure on website have been allowed as revenue expenses under Section 37(1) of the Act. The Ld AO has erred in placing reliance on the case of Goetze India Ltd Vs CIT (284 ITR 323) and holding that no claim can be made at the time of assessment which have not been made at the time of return ignoring the fact that: 2.5.1 Website…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9 vs. M/S. THE TIMES INTERNET LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

…follows: “24. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the relevant material on record, we find that this issue is no more res integra in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. India Visit.com (P) Ltd. (2008) 219 CTR 603 (Del) in which it has been held that the expenditure on development of website is a revenue expenditure. Similar view has been taken by the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the immediately preceding year. Respectfully following the precedent, we uphold the impugned order on this issue. This ground fails.” 5. This Court is of the…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9 vs. M/S. TIMES INTERNET LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

…follows: “24. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the relevant material on record, we find that this issue is no more res integra in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. India Visit.com (P) Ltd. (2008) 219 CTR 603 (Del) in which it has been held that the expenditure on development of website is a revenue expenditure. Similar view has been taken by the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the immediately preceding year. Respectfully following the precedent, we uphold the impugned order on this issue. This ground fails.” 5. This Court is of the…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S TIMES INTERNET LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2006-07

…addition. 24. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the relevant material on record, we find that this issue is no more res integra in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Indian Visit.com (P) Ltd. (2008) 219 CTR 603 (Del) in which it has been held that the expenditure on development of website is a revenue expenditure. Similar view has been taken by the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the immediately preceding year. Respectfully following the precedent, we uphold the impugned order on this issue. This ground fails. 25. Ground no. 7 is against the…

M/S TIMES INTERNET LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2006-07

…addition. 24. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the relevant material on record, we find that this issue is no more res integra in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Indian Visit.com (P) Ltd. (2008) 219 CTR 603 (Del) in which it has been held that the expenditure on development of website is a revenue expenditure. Similar view has been taken by the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the immediately preceding year. Respectfully following the precedent, we uphold the impugned order on this issue. This ground fails. 25. Ground no. 7 is against the…