ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Conexant Systems (P) Ltd, New Delhi
In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the assessee’s cross- objection is partly allowed for statistical purposes
ITA 4359/DEL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2015AY 2004-05
Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri A.T. Varkey:Asstt. Yr: 2004-05 Acit, Circle 3(1), Vs. M/S Conexant Systems Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 11-A, Sucheta Bhawan, Vishnu Digambar Marg, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacf 2723 N & C.O. No. 37/Del/2010 ( In Ita No. 4359/Del/2009 ) Asstt. Yr: 2004-05 M/S Conexant Systems Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Circle 3(1), 11-A, Sucheta Bhawan, New Delhi. Vishnu Digambar Marg, New Delhi. ( Appellant ) (Respondent) Department By : Sh. Vijay Kumar Chadha Cit (Dr) Assessee By : Sh. Piyush Chawla Adv. Date Of Hearing : 30/09/2015. Date Of Order : 27/11/2015. O R D E R Per S.V. Mehrotra, A.M..: The Captioned Appeal By The Department & The Cross Objection By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 23-9-2009 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-Xx, New Delhi In Appeal No. 153/2007-08, Relating To Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. The Assessee, A 100% Subsidiary Of Globespan Virata Inc. (’Gsv’), In The Relevant Assessment Year, Was Involved In Software Development At Various Levels To Be Used In Gsv’S Products. It Provided Hardware Drivers, System Software, Communication Protocol, Stacks Etc. The Assessee Also Developed Management Software Which Helped In Managing The Chip Or Even The Whole System. The Assessee Also Provided Market Support Services To Gsv In The Asia Pacific Region. 3. The Assessee Had Filed Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 1,63,04,536/-. During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Had Entered Into Following International Transactions:
For Appellant: Sh. Piyush Chawla AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay Kumar Chadha CIT (DR)
…36(1)(iii), observing that as per section 43(1) read with Explanation 8, interest payable on asset for the period, after such asset was put to use, could not be capitalized. He also relied on following decisions: - Bombay Steam Navigation Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT 56 ITR 52 (SC) - CIT Vs. Sivakami Mills Ltd. 227 ITR 465. 17. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the record. The facts are not disputed that the interest claimed by assessee was in respect of deferred instalments after the land including the superstructure was put to use on acquisition. Therefore, ld. CIT(A) rightly held that…
