Commissioner of Income-tax v. Super Cassettes industries Ltd
[Citation -2015-LL-1118-12]

Citation 2015-LL-1118-12
Appellant Name Commissioner of Income-tax
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 2000-01
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags excessive consumption • fresh evidence • royalty expenses • capital expenditure • work in progress
Bot Summary: This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 30th June 2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No. 3973/Del/2003 for the Assessment Year 2000-2001. All the above Questions to stand covered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue by the decision of this Court in CIT v. Krishan Kumar 228 Taxman 264 which was followed in the order dated 5th October 2015 in ITA No. 628 of 2010 The questions are accordingly not framed. As far as Question is concerned, pursuant to remand, the Assessing Officer granted relief to the Assessee, and therefore, the question does not survive. Question has been decided in favour of the Assessee by both both the Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A) as well as by ITAT purely on facts. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no substantial question of law arises.


$ * IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 13. + ITA 623/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Rohit Madan, Advocate. versus SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES LTD ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Satyen Sethi, Advocate. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU ORDER % 18.11.2015 1. This appeal by Revenue under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Act ) is directed against order dated 30th June 2009 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) in ITA No. 3973/Del/2003 for Assessment Year ( AY ) 2000-2001. 2. 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. 11,44,14,078/- on account of royalty expenses in nature of capital expenditure? (b) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, ITA No. 623/2010 Page 1 of 4 ITAT erred in law and on merits in deleting disallowance of Rs. 6,44,94,283/- on account of recording expenses in nature of capital expenditure? (c) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, ITAT erred in law and on merits in deleting disallowance of Rs. 2,83,36,414/- account of video shooting expenses? (d) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, ITAT erred in law and on merits in deleting addition of Rs.64,24,496/- on account of under valuation work in progress? (e) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, ITAT erred in law and on merits in allowing depreciation on dies and moulds @40% instead of 25% allowed by AO giving relief of Rs. 25,38,385? (f) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, ITAT erred in law and on merits in deleting disallowance of Rs. 28,16,878/- towards cost of video films Sant Gyaneshwar . (g) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, ITAT erred in law and on merits in deleting addition on account of excessive consumption of chemicals amounting to Rs. 37,80,919/- in unit C-27 and G-3? (h) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, ITA No. 623/2010 Page 2 of 4 ITAT erred in law and on merits in deleting disallownace of Rs. 10,58,10,221/- under Section 80IA of Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of unit C-26? (i) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, ITAT erred in law and on merits in deleting addition of Rs.7,00,06,524/- made by AO on account of sale of blank audio cassettes in unit C-26? (j) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, ITAT erred in law and on merits in deleting addition of Rs. 31,01,679/- on account of undisclosed production of AMT by unit C-27? (k) Whether ITAT erred in law and on merits in not adjudicating appeal of revenue on issue of deduction u/s 80HHC of Income Tax Act, 1961? (l) Whether ITAT erred in law and on merits in deleting addition of Rs. 40,14,346/- made on account of additional sales made by AO? (m) Whether ITAT erred in law and on merits in not appreciating that CIT (A) admitted fresh evidence without following procedure laid down in Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, 1962? (n) Whether order passed by ITAT is perverse in law and on ITA No. 623/2010 Page 3 of 4 merits? 3. All above Questions (a) to (j) stand covered in favour of Assessee and against Revenue by decision of this Court in CIT v. Krishan Kumar (2015) 228 Taxman 264 (Del) which was followed in order dated 5th October 2015 in ITA No. 628 of 2010 (CIT v. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd.) questions are accordingly not framed. 4. As far as Question (k) is concerned, pursuant to remand, Assessing Officer granted relief to Assessee, and therefore, question does not survive. Question (l) has been decided in favour of Assessee by both both Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] as well as by ITAT purely on facts. In facts and circumstances of case, no substantial question of law arises. Question (m) is general in nature. 5. appeal is accordingly dismissed. S.MURALIDHAR, J VIBHU BAKHRU, J NOVEMBER 18, 2015 mg ITA No. 623/2010 Page 4 of 4 Commissioner of Income-tax v. Super Cassettes industries Ltd
Report Error