IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 43. + ITA 305/2017 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-8 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Rahul Kaushik, Senior Standing Counsel. versus SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS INDIA INFORMATION & TELECOMMUNICATIONS LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Himanshu Sinha with Ms. Vrinda Tulshan, Advocates. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI ORDER % 18.04.2017 CM No. 14469/2017 (for exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CM No. 14470/2017 (for condonation of delay of 2 days in filing appeal) 2. For reasons stated in application, delay of 2 days in filing appeal is condoned. ITA 305/2017 3. This appeal, under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Act ), by Revenue is against order dated 30th September, 2016 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) in ITA No. 930/Del/2010 for ITA No. 305 of 2017 Page 1 of 3 Assessment Year ( AY ) 2002-03. 4. One of questions of law sought to be raised by Revenue stems from order of Transfer Pricing Officer ( TPO ). Disagreeing with said order, ITAT directed that entire reimbursement received by Assessee should be treated as its operating income. In so directing, ITAT followed its earlier order dated 30th April, 2013 in ITA No. 1842/Del/2009 (Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Department of Income Tax) with which company Assessee has since merged. That order dated for Assessment Year ( AY ) 2002-03 was affirmed by this Court by its order dated 21st October, 2016 in ITA No. 642/2016 (Commissioner of Income Tax-III v. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.). 5. In impugned order, ITAT has extracted relevant portions of order passed by ITAT in above case and has reiterated view taken thereunder. Although learned counsel for Revenue has sought to persuade Court to revisit issue, Court is not inclined to do so. ITAT's view in above matter is plausible. It does not give rise to any substantial question of law warranting interference with impugned order of ITAT. 6. other issues raised by Revenue concern treatment of advertisement and sales promotion expenses both on brand promotion and capital nature of advertisements and sales promotion expenses; expenses on computer software and on recruitment and training. What ITAT has done is to affirm order of CIT (A) in deleting additions made of above expenses by treating them as not resulting in benefits of ITA No. 305 of 2017 Page 2 of 3 enduring nature. 7. In considered view of Court, both CIT (A) and ITAT are justified in view taken by them that additions on these grounds require to be deleted. 8. Yet another issue concerns issue of deemed income where again order of CIT (A) deleting addition has been affirmed by ITAT. In doing so, ITAT has again relied on its earlier order dated 30th April, 2013 in case of Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Department of Income Tax (supra). 9. No substantial question of law arises. 10. appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. S. MURALIDHAR, J NAJMI WAZIRI, J APRIL 18, 2017/dn ITA No. 305 of 2017 Page 3 of 3 Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-8 v. Samsung Electronics India Information & Telecommunications Ltd