TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (10) TMI 306
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eting the addition made on account of disallowance of commission expenses? 2. Whether the Tribunal is right in rejecting the revenue's appeal filed against the decision of the CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance of claim of depreciation on intangible assets, being software? 3. Whether the Tribunal is right in deleting the addition made u/s 68 of the Act?" 2. The first question pertains to deleting the addition made on account of disallowance of commission expenses. This Court while determining Tax Appeal No. 510 of 2012 has dealt with the said issue as follows: "2. The first question pertains to deletion of the addition made on account of disallowance of commission expenses. The commission expenses to the tune of Rs. 1.24 crores....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ified. 5. We find that essentially, the question is appreciated on the basis of the factual matrix which had emerged on record and secondly, the law made applicable to such facts also as such, indicates no error. No substantial question of law nor any illegality arises which would warrant any interference in this question." This question, therefore, does not require further consideration. 3. As far as second question is concerned, in Tax Appeal No. 509 of 2012 in case of the very same assessee, where this issue has been decided as under: "The learned CIT(A) on proper examination of evidences and material rightly came to the conclusion that software is intangible asset and was loaded in the system of machine. The learned CIT(A) also....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee-respondent and the details of preferential warrants for the year under consideration also were furnished. It appears from the record that assessee-company had issued the preferential warrants as part of the debt recovery process and the said process was formed in the part of the scheme of compromise and arrangement made in Section 391 of the Companies Act with its landers and share holders. The Assessing Officer not being satisfied with the proofs adduced by the company had chosen to disallow the said amount under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 5. When challenged before the CIT(Appeals), it found that the respondent-assessee had furnished sufficient evidence in respect of details of their names, addresses, PAN and other details ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etails of receipt of share application money along with share application forms, their names, addresses, PAN and other details of the share applicants. Therefore, assessee proved identity of the share applicants, genuineness of the transactions and their creditworthiness. It was also submitted that such share application money was received as a result of compromise scheme placed before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. The assessee relied upon several decisions in support of the contention and ultimately the learned CIT(A) found that the issue is covered by decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lovely Exports, 216 CTR 195 in which it was held that as the shareholders are identified, no addition can be made in the hands of the c....