Cit vs Shriram Pistons & Rings Ltd
2012 Latest Caselaw 1101 Del

$~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