Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Amway India Enterprises
2011 Latest Caselaw 5358 Del

*                     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


                                         Vs


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

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.

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