$ * IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 9. + ITA 188/2010 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 Nos. 935/Del/2006 for Assessment Year ( AY ) 2002-03. 2. Revenue has projected following questions for consideration: a. Whether learned ITAT erred in law and on merits in upholding deletion of disallowance of Rs.21,78,15,825/- on account of royalty expenses in nature of capital expenditure? b. Whether learned ITAT erred in law and on merits in upholding deletion of disallowance of Rs.6,67,95,968/- on ITA No. 188/2010 Page 1 of 3 account of recording expenses in nature of capital expenditure? c. Whether learned ITAT erred in law and on merits in upholding deletion of disallowance of Rs.18,95,961/- on account of video shooting expenses? d. Whether learned ITAT erred in law and on merits in upholding directing AO to calculate relief on account of enhancing value of closing WIP amounting to Rs.82,60,860/-? e. Whether learned ITAT erred in law and on merits in upholding directing to allow Rs.13,81,686/- being higher rate of depreciation @ 40% on moulds as against 25% allowed? f. Whether learned ITAT erred in law and on merits in upholding order of CIT(A) directing AO to modify computation of deduction under Section 80HHC of Income Tax Act, 1961 by including various receipts as part of business profit? g. Whether learned ITAT erred in law and on merits in upholding directing AO to recomputed profit by allowing deduction under Section 80IA of Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.5,01,82,095/- in respect of Unit C-26? ITA No. 188/2010 Page 2 of 3 h. Whether order passed by learned ITAT is perverse in law and on merits? 3. Questions (a), (b), (c), (e) and (g) 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.). 4. As far as Question (d) is concerned, similar question was declined to be framed by this Court while deciding ITA No. 142 of 2010 and ITA No. 628 of 2010. 5. As far as Question (f) is concerned, on remand to Assessing Officer ( AO ) by ITAT, relief was granted to Assessee and, therefore, this issue does not survive. Question (h) is general in nature. 6. appeal is accordingly dismissed. S.MURALIDHAR, J VIBHU BAKHRU, J NOVEMBER 18, 2015/mg ITA No. 188/2010 Page 3 of 3 Commissioner of Income-tax v. Super Cassettes industries Ltd