DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Digital Radio (Mumbai) Broadcasting Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5004/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4833 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 20-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 12-09-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Question of law; Condonation of delay; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure
• Section: 6

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI C BEN CH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER. ITA NO. 5002/DEL/2014 [ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11] THE DY. C.I.T VS. DIGITAL RADIO [DELHI] BROADCAST ING LTD CIRCLE 10(1) 401, DHAKA HOUSE, 18/17 NEW DELHI W.E.A, KAROL BAGH, NEW DELHI PAN : AABCR 7864 B ITA NO. 5003/DEL/2014 [ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11] THE DY. C.I.T VS. DIGITAL RADIO [KOLKATA] BROADCA STING CIRCLE 10(1) LTD. 401, DHAKA HOUSE, 18/17 NEW DELHI W.E.A, KAROL BAGH, NEW DELHI PAN : AABCR 7863 G ITA NO. 5004/DEL/2014 [ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11] THE DY. C.I.T VS. DIGITAL RADIO [MUMBAI] BROADCAS TING CIRCLE 10(1) LTD., 401, DHAKA HOUSE, 18/17 NEW DELHI W.E.A, KAROL BAGH, NEW DELHI PAN : AABCR 7861 C [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] DATE OF HEARING : 28.08.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.08.2017 REVENUE BY : SHRI ARUN KUMAR YADAV, CIT-D R ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SANJEEV SAPRA, FC A 2 ITA NOS. 5002 TO 5004/DEL/2014 ORDER PER B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, THE ABOVE THREE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE ARIS E FROM THREE DIFFERENT ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) XIII, NEW DELHI EACH DATED 27.06.2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. SINCE IDENTICAL ISSUE S ARE INVOLVED IN ALL THESE APPEALS AND PERTAIN TO SAME ASSESSEE, THESE A RE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. 2. THE REVENUE, IN ALL THE THREE PRESENT APPEALS, HAS RAISED COMMON GROUNDS OF APPEAL EXCEPT FOR THE QUANTUM OF ADDITIO N. 3. FIRST WE ARE TAKING UP THE APPEAL IN ITA NO. 5002/DEL/2014 FOR ADJUDICATION. GROUNDS RAISED IN THIS APPEAL ARE AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,26,58,244/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WITHOU T CONSIDERING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT WITHDRAWN ITS CLAIM FOR TOTAL DEDUCTION OF THE LICENSE FEE. IN THE A.Y. 2006- 07, WHICH IS PENDING FOR ADJUDICATION BEFORE THE LD ITAT, AND WITHOUT GIVING A SPECIFIC DIRECTION THAT THE CL AIM SHOULD BE WITHDRAWN M CASE THE TIME IS DECIDED BY THE LD I T AT IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THAT YEAR 3 ITA NOS. 5002 TO 5004/DEL/2014 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO LEAVE, TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND ANY GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED ABOVE AT THE TIME OF TH E HEARING. 3. THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A), BEING CONTRARY TO TH E FACTS ON RECORD AND THE SETTLED POSITION OF LAW, BE SET A SIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 4. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF RADIO BROADCASTING AT DELHI UNDER THE C HANNEL IDENTITY 93.5 FM. THE FIRST ISSUE TO BE EXAMINED DURING THE ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF LICENSE FEES IN ACCORDANCE WITH CIT(A) O RDER DATED 02.12.2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. IN THE ORIG INAL RETURN FURNISHED THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED ANY SUCH DED UCTION AS PER ORDER OF CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT REVISED ITS RE TURN OF INCOME. HOWEVER, IT IS DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT T HE ASSESSEE MADE A CLAIM THROUGH A SEPARATE COMPUTATION CHART FURNISHE D DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS. WHAT THE ASSESSEE IS CONTEST ING IS THAT IN THE AY 2006-07 $ CLAIM FOR LICENSE FEES WAS DISALLOWED WHI CH WAS CLAIMED FOR THE TOTAL SUM AND IT WAS HELD IN THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER THAT ONLY L/10 TH OF THE CLAIM IS ADMISSIBLE. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPE AL AGAINST THIS ORDER HOWEVER CIT(A) DECIDED THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESS EE. THE ASSESSEE IS 4 ITA NOS. 5002 TO 5004/DEL/2014 IN FURTHER APPEAL AGAINST THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE AND IS CONTESTING THAT HE IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION IN LUMP SUM IN THE AY 200 6-07 ITSELF. THUS THE ASSESSEE IS MAINTAINING ITS CLAIM FOR TOTAL DEDUCTI ON IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 BUT AT THE SAME TIME HE IS MAKING A DO UBLE CLAIM IN THE AY 2010-11. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS APPARENTLY IS NOT ADMISSIBLE. THE ASSESSEE IS CAN CHOSE EITHER OF THE TWO, HE CAN WITHDRAW HIS APPEAL AND MAKE CLAIM IN THE YEAR UNDER REFERENCE O R HE CAN PERSIST WITH THE ISSUE. HOWEVER, DOUBLE CLAIM OF THE SAME D EDUCTION IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS ADDITION OF RS. 1,26,58,244/- WAS MADE AS PER THE REVISED COMPUTATION. 5. WHEN THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE LD. CIT(A) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF 1/10 TH DEDUCTION AT RS. 1,26,58,244/- BY FOLLOWING THE DEC ISION OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE RELEVANT F INDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE REPRODUCED HEREINBELOW: 2.1 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF TH E CASE AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE COUNSEL OF THE APPELLANT. T HE FACTS DENOTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER REVEAL THAT THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAD DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF 1/10 TH DEDUCTION OF RS.1,26,58,244/-MADE BY THE APPELLANT AS HELD BY TH E CIT(APPEAL) FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07. THE CIT(APPEAL)-X VIII, NEW 5 ITA NOS. 5002 TO 5004/DEL/2014 DELHI WHILE ADJUDICATING THIS ISSUE HELD AS UNDER: '5.7 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ID. AR. IT IS NOT IN DISPUT E THAT THE APPELLANT WAS ENTITLED TO CLAIM LICENSE FEE EXPENDI TURE AS ACTUALLY PAID UNDER PHASE-1 LICENSE REGIME ON PROPO RTIONATE BASIS OVER THE 10 YEAR LICENSE FEE TERM COMMENCING FROM A.Y. 2004-05 AS PER SECTION 35ABB OF I.T. ACT, AS A LLOWED BY THE AO VIDE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR 2004-05. THE ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION THEREFORE IS THE ALLOWABILITY OF THE REMAINING LICENSE FEE EXPENDITURE OF RS. 12,65,82,440/- AS PA ID DURING THE A.YS. 2004-05 AND 2005-06 UNDER PHASE- I LICENSE RE GIME. THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THE ABOVE AMOUNT FOR DEDUCTIO N IN FULL AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE U/S 35ABB OF THE ACT BASING ON THE CUTOFF DATE OF 01.04.2005 FOR MIGRATION TO PHASED! LICENSE REGIME. THE AO HAS DISALLOWED THE SAME BY TREATING IT AS A CAPI TAL LOSS. ON CAREFUL EXAMINATION, I FIND THAT THE MIGRATION OF L ICENSE FROM PHASE-1 LICENSE REGIME TO PHASE-II LICENSE REGIME D OES NOT PER-SE AMOUNT TO 'TRANSFER' OF LICENSE BY THE APPELLANT AS REQUIRED UNDER SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 35ABB OF I.T. ACT IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM FOR ALLOWING THE REMA INING ENTIRE LICENSE FEE EXPENDITURE OF RS.12,65,82,440/- UNDER PHASE- I LICENSE REGIME DURING A.Y. 2006-07 ITSELF. IN THIS CASE, I FIND THAT WHILE MIGRATING FROM PHASE-I LICENSE REGIME TO PHA SE -II LICENSE REGIME, THERE WAS NO TRANSFER OF LICENSE FROM THE A PPELLANT TO ANY OTHER PARTY. THE CASE LAWS AS CITED BY THE ID. AR VIDE ITS SUBMISSIONS DATED 18.11.2010 ARE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS AS SUCH CASES DEAL WITH DEFINITION OF 'TRANSFER' OF A CAPITAL ASSET U/S 6 ITA NOS. 5002 TO 5004/DEL/2014 2(47) OF THE ACT WHICH INCLUDES EXCHANGE OR RELINQU ISHMENT OF THE ASSET OR/EXTINGUISHMENT OF ANY RIGHTS THEREIN. WHAT WE ARE CONCERNED HERE IN THIS CASE IS NOT 'TRANSFER 7 WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(47) OF THE ACT, BUT UNDER SECTION 35AB B OF THE ACT WHICH IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT IN CONTEXT AND APPLICAT ION AS IT RELATES TO AMORTIZATION OF EXPENSES. ACCORDINGLY, I FIND THAT SECTION 35ABB(2) HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE FACTS OF APPELLANT'S CASE, AND HENCE THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OF THE ENTIRE REMAINING LICENSE FEE EXPENDITURE OF RS. 12,65,82,4 40/- DURING THIS YEAR IS REJECTED. 5.8 HOWEVER, FROM THE GOVT. POLICY DOCUMENT DA TED 13.07.2005 AS POINTED BY THE ID. AR, IT IS FOUND TH AT THE FM LICENSEES IN METRO CITIES WERE ELIGIBLE TO OPT FOR MIGRATION TO PHASE-LL LICENSE ONLY IF THEY HAD PAID ALL THEIR LI CENSE FEE DUES UNDER PHASE-1 LICENSE REGIME AS WERE APPLICABLE TIL L THE CUTOFF DATE OF 01.04.2005. IN THIS CONNECTION, RELEVANT PO RTION UNDER THE HEADING 'MIGRATION TO PHASE 2' FROM SUCH POLICY DOCUMENT DATED 1 3.07.2005 ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 'AUTOMATIC MIGRATION SHALL BE CONSIDERED FOR ONLY T HOSE LICEN SE HOLDERS OF PHASE-1 WHO HAVE ADMITTEDLY OPERATIONALISED THEIR CHANNELS, PROVIDED THEY HAVE PAID ALL THEIR DUES FROM THE DUE DATE (AFTER ALLOWING FOR CE RTAIN CONDONATION OF DELAY IN THE CASE OF DELHI, KOLKATA AND CHENNAI DUE TO PROBLEMS OF CO-LOCATION) UP TO THE C UT-OFF DATE, AND ARE NOT IN DEFAULT OF ANY OTHER LICENSE C ONDITIONS TILL THE DATE OF MIGRATION TO PHASE 2. 7 ITA NOS. 5002 TO 5004/DEL/2014 THE CUT-OFF DATE FOR AUTOMATIC MIGRATION TO PHASE 2 SHALL BE TAKEN AS APRIL 1, 2005. ALL PAYMENTS MADE BY OPERAT IONALISED LICENSE HOLDERS OF PHASE 1 IN EXCESS OF AMOUNTS DUE TILL THE CUT- OFF-DATE, SHALL BE GIVEN CREDIT AND ADJUSTED AGAINS T THEIR ONE TIME ENTRY FEE (OTEF) FOR PHASE 1' 'IT MAY PLEASE BE NOTED THAT OPTION TO MIGRATE TO P HASE II POLICY REGIME WOULD BE CONSIDERED VALID ONLY AFTER ALL AMOUNT DUE UP TO CUT OFF DATE ARE RECEIVED IN THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT. ON EXERCISING YOUR OPTION TO AUTOMATIC MIGRATION TO PHASE II, AND PAYMENT OF OTE F WITHIN PRESCRIBED PERIOD, YOU SHALL BE REQUIRED TO SIGN A FRESH GRANT OF PERMISSION AGREEMENT WITH GOVERNMENT ON THE SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS FOR THE SUCCESSFUL BIDDERS OF PHASE II' IN OTHER WORDS, PAYMENT OF LICENSE FEE DUES UNDER P HASE- I LICENSE REGIME WAS MADE A PRECONDITION BY THE GOVT, IN ORDER TO PERMIT THE APPELLANT TO MIGRATE TO PHASE-II LICENS E REGIME. 5.8 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE REMAINING EXPENDITUR E ON ACCOUNT OF FIXED LICENSE FEE-AS ACTUALLY INCURRED B Y THE APPELLANT UNDER PHASE-1 LICENSE REGIME BECOMES PART AND PARCEL OF ALL THE PAYMENTS AS MADE IN ORDER TO BECOME ELIG IBLE FOR FURTHER, COPY OF LETTER DATED 21.12.05 AS ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING TO THE APPELLANT AL SO CLEARLY VIDE PARA- 4 SPECIFIES THE AMOUNTS DUE A ND PAYABLE BY THE APPELLANT UNDER PHASE- 1, LICENSE FEE REGIME AND VIDE PARA 5 STATES AS UNDER: 8 ITA NOS. 5002 TO 5004/DEL/2014 OBTAINING PHASE-LL LICENSE. AS OTEF (MIGRATION FEE) OF RS 22,22,52,219/- HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE AO TO BE AL LOWED OVER THE 10 YEAR TERM OF PHASE-LL LICENSE UNDER SUB-SECT ION (1) OF SECTION 35ABB, ON THE SAME BASIS, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE REMAINING EXPENDITURE OF RS.L2,65,82,440/-AS INCURR ED BY THE APPELLANT UNDER PHASE -I LICENSE ALSO NEEDS TO BE A LLOWED OVER THE NEW 10 YEAR TERM UNDER PHASE-II LICENSE REGIME STARTING FROM A.Y.2006-07 IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 35ABB(1 ) OF I.T. ACT READ WITH CBDT'S CIRCULAR 763 DATED 18.12.1998. 5.9 I FIND THAT THE ABOVE ISSUE IS SIMILAR TO THE ISSUE OF ALLOWABILITY OF LICENSE FEE ON MIGRATION FROM FIXED LICENSE FEE REGIME TO REVENUE SHARING REGIME IN CASE OF TELECOM COMPANIES AS PER THE POLICY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNIC ATION, GOVT, OF INDIA. IN THIS REGARD, IN THE CASE OF RPG CELLCOM LTD. (PRESENTLY KNOWN AS IDEA CELLULAR LTD.) PERTAINING TO THIS CHARGE, THE ASSESSEE WAS GRANTED A LICENSE DURING FY 1995-9 6 BY THE DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS, GOVT, OF INDIA FO R A PERIOD OF 10 YEARS FOR OPERATING TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVIC ES. FOR ACQUIRING THE ABOVE LICENSE, THE APPELLANT HAD PAID A FIXED LICENSE FEE DURING FINANCIAL YEARS 1995-96 TO 1999- 2000. THE BUSINESS ACTUALLY COMMENCED IN THE MONTH OF FEBRUAR Y 1997. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE AB OVE LICENSE FEE IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME FROM AY 1997-98 TO 1999 -2000 AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 35ABB BY AMORTIZING THE L ICENSE FEE OVER 10 YEARS WHICH WAS ALLOWED BY THE DEPARTMENT I N ALL THE YEARS. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNIC ATIONS, GOVT, OF INDIA VIDE ITS LETTER NO. 842-47/2000- VAS (VOL. IV) DATED 05.10.2000 EXTENDED THE PERIOD OF ABOVE LICENSE FRO M 10 YEARS 9 ITA NOS. 5002 TO 5004/DEL/2014 TO 20 YEARS AND CONFIRMED MIGRATION FROM FIXED LICE NSE FEE REGIME TO REVENUE SHARING REGIME W.E.F. 01.08.1999 IN VIEW OF THE NEW TELECOM POLICY-99. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSE E RE- CALCULATED THE AMORTIZATION OF LICENSE FEE OVER 20 YEARS AND IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FROM AY 2001-02, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE AMORTIZATION BY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE UNEXPIRED P ERIOD OF THE LICENSE FEE OF 16 YEARS (OUT OF TOTAL 20 YEARS) AND CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION U/S 35ABB ACCORDINGLY. THE SAID DEDUCTION U/S 35ABB AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME AS PER THE NEW CALCULATION FROM AY 2001-02 ONWARDS HAS BEEN AL LOWED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN ALL THE YEARS. 5.10 ACCORDINGLY, THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO R S. 1,26,58,244/- BEING 1/10 TH OF RS. 12,65,82,440/- AS DEDUCTIBLE EXPENDITURE U/S 35ABB DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION I.E. A.Y. 2006-07. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISPOSED OFF ACCORDINGLY.' 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND PERUSED T HE FACTS OF THE CASE. AT THE OUTSET, ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF TH E LD. CIT(A), WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING O FFICER TO ALLOW 1/10 TH DEDUCTION AT RS. 1,26,58,244/- FOR THE REASONS MENT IONED IN THE WELL REASONED ORDER REPRODUCED HEREINABOVE. MOREOVER, T HIS ISSUE IS ALSO COVERED BY THE DECISION OF ITAT B BENCH IN ASSESS EES OWN CASE VIDE ORDER DATED 24.11.2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE ITAT IS REPRODUCED HEREINBELOW FOR R EADY REFERENCE: 10 ITA NOS. 5002 TO 5004/DEL/2014 WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY PERUSED THE REASON GIVEN BY CIT (A) FOR ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION OF FEES PAID BY ASSESSEE UNDER PHASE -I OVER THE REMAINING LIFE OF THE LICENSE GRA NTED UNDER PHASE-II OF THE REGIME. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMIT Y IN THE FINDING AS WELL AS REASONING GIVEN BY CIT (A) AS IN SUBSTANCES THE REASON CANVASSED BY CIT (A) ARE SIMILAR TO WHAT WE HAVE PROPOUNDED IN OUR ORDER. IN VIEW OF THIS WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN GRANTING DEDUCTION OF RS. 1,26,58,244/ - BEING 1/1OTH OF RS. 12,65,82,440/- BEING FEES PAID BY ASS ESSEE IN PHASE I AS DEDUCTIBLE EXPENDITURE U/S 35ABB(1) DURI NG THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E. A.Y. 2006-07. IN RESU LT GROUND NO 1 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 7. THE MATTER TRAVELLED BEFORE THE HON'BLE DELHI HI GH COURT WHERE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN ITA NOS. 432 TO 434/2016 VIDE ORDER DATED 24.5.2017 UPHELD THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE RELEVANT OPERATIVE PARA NO. 11 OF THE ORDER IS REPRODUCED HEREINBELOW: 11. HAVING HEARD LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES, THE COURT IS OF THE VIEW THAT NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARI SES ON ANY OF THE ABOVE ISSUES. AS FAR AS THE QUESTIONS 2.1 TO 2. 3 ARE CONCERNED, THE PURPORT OF THE SAID QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE THAT PHASE-II LICENCE REGIME WAS NOT IN CONTINUATION OF PHASE-I WHEN IN FACT IT WAS. IT IS ON THIS BASIS THAT THE AMOUNT EQUIVALENT TO 1/10 TH OF THE TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURE WAS 11 ITA NOS. 5002 TO 5004/DEL/2014 ALLOWED PROPORTIONATELY OVER 10 YEAR PERIOD IN ACCO RDANCE WITH SECTION 35ABB (1) OF THE ACT. IT PROVIDES THAT ANY CAPITAL EXPENDITURE ACTUALLY INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON TH E ACQUISITION OF ANY RIGHT TO OPERATE TELECOM SERVICES IS TO BE A LLOWED AS A DEDUCTION IN EQUAL INSTALLMENT OVER THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE LICENCE REMAINS IN FORCE. THE CONCURRENT FINDINGS O F THE IT AT AND CIT (A) IN THIS REGARD ARE NOT SHOWN TO BE PERV ERSE OR CONTRARY TO THE EXPRESS TERMS OF THOSE LICENSES. CO NSEQUENTLY, THE COURT DECLINES TO FRAME THE QUESTIONS AS POSED BY THE REVENUE AT 2.1 TO 2.3 ABOVE. 8. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE EXPENDITURE SO CLAIMED BY THE ASSE SSEE HAS RIGHTLY BEEN ALLOWED PROPORTIONATELY FOR 10 YEAR PERIOD U/S 35ABB OF THE ACT AND WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF TH E LD. CIT(A). THUS THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 9. SINCE THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE, FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES, CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE RIVAL REPRES ENTATIVES ARE SAME AND SIMILAR, OUR VIEW TAKEN HEREINABOVE IN ITA NO. 5002/DEL/2014 WILL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS TO THE OTHER TWO APPEALS OF THE REVENUE BEING ITA NOS. 5003/DEL/2014 AND 5004/DEL/2014 AS WELL. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS RAISED IN BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. 12 ITA NOS. 5002 TO 5004/DEL/2014 10. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF THE REV ENUE STAND DISMISSED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29.08. 2017. SD/- SD/- [KULDIP SINGH] [B.P. JAIN] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 29 TH AUGUST, 2017 VL/ COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI