TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 1008
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....read thus: "2.2 Whether the ITAT/CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,85,14,345/- made by the Assessing officer treating the amount of expenditure on airfare booked under technical guidance fee as capital expenditure instead of revenue expenditure claimed by the Assessee? 2.3 Whether the ITAT/CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,80,73,802/- made by the Assessing officer on account of disallowance of entry tax, which was claimed as a deductible under section 43B? 2.4 Whether the ITAT/CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 97,32,768/- made by the Assessing officer treating the expenditure incurred on software expenses as capital expenditure instead of revenue expenditure? 3. The above three questions have alre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urther although for AY 2008-09, the issue of treatment of the expenditure towards royalty as revenue expenditure has been confirmed by the ITAT and upheld by this Court by dismissing the Revenue's appeal being ITA 34/2016 by the order dated 18th January 2016, Mr. Bhatia points out that the above order dated 18th January 2016 was in fact not on merits but on account of the extraordinary delay of over 790 days in the re-filing of the said appeal. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Deepak Chopra, learned counsel for the Assessee, points out that the ITAT has in the impugned order discussed the decision of the Supreme Court in Honda Siel Car Ltd. v. CIT (2019) 409 ITR 42 which concerned treatment of royalty payment made to its principal during the init....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to 2005-06 would not be applicable in the AY under consideration, since, the Assessee was already engaged in the manufacturing of cars, spare parts and payments towards royalty/technical knowhow. Thereafter in paragraph 37, the ITAT has given the following reasons: "In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in assessee's own case for assessment year 1999-2000 to 2005-06 would not be applicable in the assessment year under consideration, since the assessee was already engaged in the manufacturing of cars and spare parts and the payments towards royalty/technical knowhow paid in pursuant to agreement dated 01/04/2005 were not toward setting up of manufacturing facility, hence we hold....