DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s United Hotels Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2780/DEL/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 114 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9876 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 08-06-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R R PRASAD
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY VOHRA ADV MS NIDHI SAIN

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 2780/DEL/2009 A.Y. 2005-06 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH A NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.L. SETHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 2780/DEL/2009 A.Y. 2005-06 DY. CIT, CIR 18(1), VS. M/S UNITED HOTELS LTD., NEW DELHI THE AMBASSADOR HOTEL, SUJAN SINGH PARK, CORNWALLIS ROAD, NEW DELHI [APPELLANT] (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI R.R. PRASAD, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AJAY VOHRA, ADV. / MS. NIDHI SAIN, ADV. ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) DATED 5.3.2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE APPEAL IS THAT THE CIT( A) ERRED IN DELETING THE FOLLOWING DISALLOWANCES:- I) ANNUAL ENTITLEMENT FEES : RS. 37,35,935/- II) TECHNICALLY CONSULTANCY : RS. 2,40,932/- III) COMMISSION PAID TO DIRECTORS : RS. 30,61,53 1/- 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSELS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. IT TRANSPIRED THAT ALL THE ISSUES HAVE EARLIER BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. ITA NO. 2780/DEL/2009 A.Y. 2005-06 2 943/DEL/2009 FOR A.Y. 2004-05 VIDE ORDER DATED 31.3. 2009. THE SAID ORDER HAS DEALT WITH THE SAME ISSUES AS UNDER:- I) AS REGARDS ANNUAL ENTITLEMENT FEES, IT WAS FO UND THAT THE SAME IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS HELD THA T THE SAME WAS ALLOWABLE WHILE COMPUTING THE BUSINESS PROFIT UNDER SECTION 3 7(1) OF THE IT ACT. II) IN THE SAME DECISION, IT WAS ALSO FOUND THAT T ECHNICALLY CONSULTANCY FEES PAID WAS ALSO ALLOWABLE AND IT WAS ADMISSIBLE EXP ENSES. III) AGAIN IN THE SAME ORDER VIDE PARA NO. 7 THE I SSUE OF COMMISSION PAID TO DIRECTORS WAS FOUND TO BE ALLOWABLE AND THE COMMI SSION WAS AN INTEGRAL PART OF REMUNERATION OF DIRECTORS. 4. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION, WE FIND THAT ALL THESE ISSUES HAVE BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN EARLIER YEARS. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE FACTS ARE DIFFERENT IN THIS YEAR OR THAT T HE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAVE REVERSED THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL. ACCORDINGLY , FOLLOWING THE DECISION, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DECIDED THE ISSUE A GAINST THE REVENUE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH AUGUST, 2009. SD/- SD/- [C.L. SETHI] [SHAMIM YAHYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 28 TH AUGUST, 2009 SRB COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES