$ * IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 9. + ITA 191/2010 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. 557/Del/2007 for Assessment Year ( AY ) 2003-04. 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. 19,40,98,709/- 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. 7,72,16,179/- on ITA No. 191/2010 Page 1 of 4 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. 2,96,31,305/- on account of video shooting expenses? d. Whether learned ITAT erred in law and on merits in upholding directing AO to re-compute relief on account of under valuation work in progress in terms of direction given by CIT(A) in AY 2001-2002 and 2002-2003? e. Whether learned ITAT erred in law and on merits in upholding allowing depreciation on dies and moulds @ 40% instead of 25% allowed by AO giving relief of Rs.17,46,482/-? f. Whether learned ITAT erred in law and on merits in upholding order of CIT(A) directing AO to recomputed profit by allowing deduction under Section 80IA of Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 4,43,27,995/- in respect of Unit C-26? g. Whether learned ITAT erred in law and on merits in allowing consequential relief on account of depreciation amounting to Rs. 31,59,673/- on mould capitalized in earlier years? h. Whether learned ITAT erred in law and on merits in upholding directing AO to modify computation of ITA No. 191/2010 Page 2 of 4 deduction under Section 80 HHC of Income Tax Act, 1961 by including various deposits as part of business profit? i. Whether order passed by learned ITAT is perverse in law and on merits? 3. 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.). 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 for AY 1995- 96 and ITA No. 628 of 2010 for AY 1997-98. 5. As far as Questions (e), (f) and (g) are concerned, they stand covered in favour of Assessee and against Revenue by order dated 5 th October 2015 in ITA No. 628 of 2010. As far as Question (h) is concerned, on remand to Assessing Officer ( AO ) by ITAT, relief was granted to Assessee and, therefore, this issue does not survive. Question (i) is general in nature. ITA No. 191/2010 Page 3 of 4 6. appeal is accordingly dismissed. S.MURALIDHAR, J VIBHU BAKHRU, J NOVEMBER 18, 2015 mg ITA No. 191/2010 Page 4 of 4 Commissioner of Income-tax v. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd