Turner International India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

MA 522/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 103 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8622 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 10-11-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 21-07-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 24-11-2021
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

Page | 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Kul Bharat, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member MA No. 522/Del/2018 (In ITA No.5981/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year: 2006-07) M/s Turner International India Pvt. Ltd., 5 th Floor, Radisson Commercial Plaza, NH-8, Mahipalpur, New Delhi Vs DCIT, Circle-16(1), New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACT3821H Assessee by : Sh. Ravi Sharma, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 22.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 11.11.2022 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: This Miscellaneous Application was filed by the assessee in ITA No. 5981/Del/2010 for AY 2006-07 dated 25.04.2018. 2. The ground No. 3 of the appeal reads as under: “3. Ld. DRP erred, both on facts in law, in confirming the addition of relocation expenses amounting to Rs.3,78,390/- to the income of the appellant holding that the expenditure incurred on relocation of two employees (Rs.1,53,283) and on relocation of fixed assets like printers, UPS, etc. (Rs.2,25,107) resulted in a capital advantage.” 3. The grounds have been duly mentioned at page no. 2 of the order of the ITAT and the same has been adjudicated after considering the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Patna. The matter has been mentioned at para 4 at page no. 4 giving the reference of the relocation of two employees Page | 2 from Bangalore and Delhi offices to Mumbai office and also relocation of fixed assets within Mumbai. At page no. 7 para 4.4, the Tribunal has considered the finding of the ld. DRP and at para 4.5 and 4.6, the Tribunal has mentioned about different parts of expenditure incurred in relocation of the fixed assets as well as the goods of the employees. After considering the entire expenses, the Tribunal has concluded that the relocation expenditure is of capital in nature. Since, the order of the Tribunal reflects in detail the due consideration of the entire expenses and also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Patna in the case of CIT Vs. Jamshedpur Engineering & Machine Manufacturing Company Ltd. (157 ITR 730) and held that the relocation expenses are capital in nature, we decline to allow the MA. 4. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application of the assessee is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 11/11/2022. Sd/- Sd/- (Kul Bharat) (Dr. B. R. R. Kumar) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 11/11/2022 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR