AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (10) TMI 329
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ondonation of delay of 7 days in filing the appeals] CM No. 45547/2023 in ITA No. 499/2023 CM No. 45549/2023 in ITA No. 500/2023 [Applications filed on behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of delay of 104 days in re-filing the appeals] 1. The above-captioned applications, concerning Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15 [ITA No. 499/2023] and AY 2013-14 [ITA No. 500/2023], have been moved on behalf of the appellant/revenue, seeking condonation of delay in filing and re-filing the appeals. 1.1 The period for which condonation of delay is sought is identical in both the subject appeals. 1.2 According to the appellant/revenue, there is a delay of seven (7) days in filing and 104 days in re-filing the appeals. 2. Mr Deepak Chopr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e respondent/assessee's income at the aforementioned amount, the AO had disallowed expenses amounting to Rs. 43,01,40,500/-. (iv) The AO had noted that the respondent/assessee had not earned any revenue from its business. The only income that it had earned was income from other sources, i.e., interest earned on fixed deposits. (v) The respondent/assessee, being aggrieved with the approach adopted by the AO, preferred an appeal with the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, "CIT(A)"]. (vi) The CIT(A), via order dated 28.02.2019, sustained the addition made by the AO with regard to expenses that had been disallowed. (vii) It is in these circumstances that the respondent/assessee preferred an appea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... counsel for the parties and perused the record, we are of the view of that the submission advanced by Mr Maratha does not emerge from the record. 15. As a matter of fact, a bare perusal of the proposed questions of law suggests that the objection that the AO had in allowing the expenditure claimed by the respondent/assessee was that the said amount had been spent in building a brand for future utilization which was, according to him, an intangible asset, as per the Accounting Standard-26 issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. 15.1 Therefore, this submission of Mr Maratha cannot be accepted. 16. The following observations made in the assessment order lend credence to what is noted hereinabove: "The fact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re, got the wrong answer. 21. We may also note that during the course of arguments, we had asked Mr Maratha as to whether he had placed on record the order of the Tribunal concerning AY 2012-13. 21.1 Mr Maratha informs us that the said order had not been filed. 22. Fortunately, Mr Chopra had a copy of the order dated 05.07.2022 passed by the Tribunal vis-à-vis AY 2012-13. We have perused the hard copy of the order placed before us. 23. A perusal of the aforementioned order revealed that the issue that Mr Maratha sought to raise before us, albeit across the bar, was the very issue which the Tribunal grappled with in AY 2012-13. Both the AO and the Tribunal noted the stand of the respondent/assessee with regard to the techn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ering. 1.2 The impugned agreement is for purchase of software in regard to "items of intellectual property" and was received in the form of "open source code" on the cloud on a platform similar to GitLab in the cloud. It was to be used on the cloud with the help of "Cloud Computing Tools". 1.3 GitLab is a web-based Git repository that provides free open and private repositories, issue-following capabilities, and wikis. It is a complete DevOps platform that enables professionals to perform all the tasks in a project - from project planning and source code management to monitoring and security. 1.4 These items of intellectual property have been described on PB page 84 to 85 - Exhibit" A". 1.4.1 These are of....