SQL Star International Ltd., Hyderabad V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1019/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 101920114 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-12-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 02-12-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 09-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RENUKA JAIN GUPTA
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : G NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, A.M. AND SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JM ITA NO. 1019/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 ITA NO. 1177/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2000-01 AND ITA NO. 4291/DEL/2005 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03 SQL STAR INTERNATIONAL LTD. VS. ACIT, CIRCLE 9(1) SQL STAR HOUSE NEW DELHI 8-2-293/174/A 25, ROAD NO.14 BANJARA HILLS HYDERABAD 500 034 PAN: AAACS 0372 C ITA NO. 4741/DEL/2005 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03 DY.CIT, CIRCLE 9(1) VS. SQL STAR INTERNATIONAL LT D. NEW DELHI HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY:- NONE DEPARTMENT BY :- SMT.RENUKA JAIN GUPTA, SR.D.R . O R D E R PER J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM ITA 1019/DEL/2010 IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESS EE FOR THE A.Y. 2006- 07; ITA 1177/DEL/2010 IS ALSO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE A.Y. 2000-2001. 2 THE REVENUE HAS FILED AN APPEAL IN ITA 4741/DEL/200 5 FOR THE A.Y. 2002-03. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL IN ITA 4291/DEL/20 05 FOR THE A.Y. 2002-03. 2. ITA 4741/DEL/05 IS FILED ON 20.12.2005. THE SAM E HAS COME UP BEFORE THE BENCH ON MORE THAN 17 OCCASIONS. THOUGH NOTICE HAS BEEN SERVED, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. EVEN IN THE ASSESSES APPEALS THOUGH NOTICE OF PO STING HAS BEEN SERVED, NONE APPEARED WHEN THE CASES ARE CALLED ON BOARD. MR.TARANDEEP SINGH, C.A. SUBMITTED THAT HE IS REPRESENTING THE COMPANY FOR O NLY TWO APPEALS I.E. ITA 3507 & 3508/DEL/2007. WE GRANTED SHORT ADJOURNMENT AND REQUESTED THE COUNSEL TO INFORM THE COMPANY OF THE FACT OF POSTIN G ALL THE APPEALS TODAY FOR HEARING. WE WERE INFORMED BY MR.TARANDEEP SINGH TH AT THE COMPANY WAS DULY INFORMED. DESPITE BEING INFORMED, NONE APPEARED O N BEHALF OF THE COMPANY. THUS WE CONCLUDE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTE D IN PROSECUTING THE APPEALS. FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF C IT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA P.LTD. 38 ITD, 320 (DELHI), AND THE DECISION OF THE HONBL E BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S CHEMIPOL VS. UOI AND OTHERS IN CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 62/2009 JUDGEMENT DT. 17 TH SEPTEMBER,2009, WE CONSIDER IT A FIT CASE FOR DISMISSING THE ASSESSEES APPEALS AS NOT ADMITTED. IN THE RESULT, WE DISMISS ALL THE THREE ASSESSEES APPEALS AS NOT ADMITTED. 4. WE NOW TAKE UP THE REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA 4741/ DEL/2005 WHICH IS ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS. 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.82,15,825/- MADE BY 3 THE A.O. BY RESTRICTING THE DEPRECIATION ON COMPUTE R SOFTWARE TO 20% AGAINST THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE @ 100%. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOW ANCE OF RS.26,85,273/- MADE BY THE A.O. FROM THE INTEREST EXPENSES CLAIMED BY T HE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF BORROWED FUNDS NOT UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSI NESS AND PROFESSION, PROFITS AND GAINS OF WHICH ARE CHARGEABLE TO TAX UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. 5. WE HAVE HEARD SMT. RENUKA JAIN GUPTA, THE LD.SR. D.R. ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) HAS DEALT WITH THE ISSUE OF DEPRECIATION AT PARA 3.2 OF HIS ORDER. W E SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN LINE WITH THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF AMWAY INDIA LTD. IN THE RESULT THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTIC AL PURPOSES. 6. GROUND NO.2 IS AGAINST DELETION OF THE DISALLOWA NCE OF RS.26,86,273/- FROM INTEREST EXPENSES. THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX (APPEALS) HAS DEALT WITH THE ISSUE AT PARA 5.2 TO 5.4 OF HIS ORDE R. THE LD.D.R. COULD NOT CONTROVERT THESE FINDINGS. IN THE RESULT THIS GROU ND IS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DI SMISSED AS NOT ADMITTED, AND THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED IN PART. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06 TH DECEMBER, 2013. SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 4 DATED: THE 06 TH DECEMBER, 2013 *MANGA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT; 2.RESPONDENT; 3.CIT; 4.CIT (A); 5.DR; 6.GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR