CIT v. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd - 2015-LL-1118-10

Citation	2015-LL-1118-10
Appellant Name	CIT
Respondent Name	Super Cassettes Industries Ltd.
Court	HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Relevant Act	Income-tax
Date of Order	18/11/2015
Assessment Year	2005-06
Judgment	View Judgment
Keyword Tags	condonation of delay • royalty expenses
Bot Summary:	For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in re-filing the appeal is condoned. This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 24th June 2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No. 1952/Del/2010 for the ITA No. 565 of 2012 Page 1 of 3 Assessment Year 2005-06. Questions, and stand covered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue by the order in CIT v. Krishan Kumar 2015 228 Taxman 264 which was followed in the order dated 5th October 2013 ITA No. 565 of 2012 Page 2 of 3 in ITA No. 628 of 2010. Question is covered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue by the order dated 5th October 2013 in ITA No. 628 of 2010.

$ * IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 25. + ITA 565/2012 CIT ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Rohit Madan, Senior Standing counsel. versus SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Satyen Sethi with Mr. Arta Trana Panda, Advocate. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU ORDER % 18.11.2015 CM No. 16324/2012 (for condonation of delay in re-filing appeal) 1. For reasons stated in application, delay in re-filing appeal is condoned. 2. application is disposed of. ITA 565/2012 3. This appeal by Revenue under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Act ) is directed against order dated 24th June 2011 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) in ITA No. 1952/Del/2010 for ITA No. 565 of 2012 Page 1 of 3 Assessment Year ( AY ) 2005-06. 4. Revenue has projected following questions for consideration: (a) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, ITAT erred in law and on merits in deleting disallowance of Rs.28,97,36,155/- on account of royalty expenses by treating them as Capital in nature? (b) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, ITAT erred in law and on merits in deleting disallowance of Rs.9,52,96,643/- on account of recording expenses? (c) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, ITAT erred in law and on merits in deleting disallowance of Rs.2,63,40,479/- on account of video shooting expenses? (d) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, ITAT erred in law and on merits in deleting disallowance of Rs.7,84,420/- on account of depreciation on dies & moulds? (e) Whether order passed by ITAT is perverse in law and on merits? 5. Questions (a), (b) and (c) stand covered in favour of Assessee and against Revenue by order in CIT v. Krishan Kumar [2015] 228 Taxman 264 (Del) which was followed in order dated 5th October 2013 ITA No. 565 of 2012 Page 2 of 3 in ITA No. 628 of 2010 (CIT v. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd.). Question (d) is covered in favour of Assessee and against Revenue by order dated 5th October 2013 in ITA No. 628 of 2010 (CIT v. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd.). Question (e) is of general nature. 6. appeal is accordingly dismissed. S. MURALIDHAR, J VIBHU BAKHRU, J NOVEMBER 18, 2015 dn ITA No. 565 of 2012 Page 3 of 3 CIT v. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd

Metadata

Judgment