$ * IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 22. + ITA 562/2012 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. 16323/2012 (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 562/2012 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 Nos. 5085 & ITA No. 562 of 2012 Page 1 of 4 5775/Del/2010 for Assessment Year ( AY ) 2007-08. 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.50,49,50,612/- on account of royalty expenses? (b) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, ITAT erred in law and on merits in deleting disallowance of Rs.6,96,03,012/- 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.1,76,48,930/- 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.7,19,398/- on account of depreciation on dies & moulds? (e) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, ITAT erred in law and on merits in deleting disallowance of Rs.4,31,955/- on account of software expenses by treating same as capital in nature amounting? ITA No. 562 of 2012 Page 2 of 4 (f) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, ITAT erred in law and on merits in deleting disallowance of Rs.62,376/- made by AO u/s 14A of Income Tax, 1961? (g) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, ITAT had restored issue relating to disallowance of Rs.1,00,80,328/- on account of Other Income, Video Shooting Expenses and Amount received from producers towards publicity while computing deduction u/s 80IC of Income Tax Act, 1961 to file of AO for re-verification after giving opportunity to assessee? (h) Whether ITAT erred in law in restoring issue of deduction under Section 80IC of Income Tax Act, 1961 on Baddi Unit? (i) Whether ITAT failed to appreciate that deduction u/s 80IC of Income Tax Act, 1961 is available only on eligible profits of unit seeking deduction? (j) 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 decision 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.). ITA No. 562 of 2012 Page 3 of 4 6. Questions (d) is covered by order in ITA No. 628 of 2010 (CIT v. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd.) in favour of Assessee and against Revenue. 7. Question (e) is covered in favour of Assessee and against Revenue by decision of this Court in CIT v. BSES Rajdhani Power Limited [2013] 358 ITR 47 (Del.). 8. As far as Question (f) is concerned, it is not pressed and, therefore, no substantial question of law arises. 9. As far as Questions (g) to (i) are concerned, on remand to Assessing Officer ( AO ) by ITAT, relief was granted to Assessee and, therefore, this issue does not survive. Question (j) is of general nature. 10. appeal is accordingly dismissed. S. MURALIDHAR, J VIBHU BAKHRU, J NOVEMBER 18, 2015 dn ITA No. 562 of 2012 Page 4 of 4 CIT v. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd