TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (11) TMI 45
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appeal. 1.1 According to the appellant/revenue, there is a delay of 288 days in refiling the appeal. 2. For the reasons given in the application, the prayer seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal is allowed. 3. The application is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms. ITA 579/2023 4. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. 5. Via the instant appeal, the appellant/revenue seeks to assail the order dated 30.03.2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, "Tribunal"]. 6. The appellant/revenue has proposed the following questions of law for our consideration: "A. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Hon'ble ITAT has erred in deleting the disallowance of R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the disallowance calculated under Rule 8D of 1962 Rules should factor in only investments made by an assessee to earn exempt income. Therefore, the said proposed question of law need not be considered by us. 10. Insofar as proposed question "B" is concerned, the same is also covered by a coordinate bench judgment rendered in the respondent/assessee's case in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-9 vs. Times Internet Ltd. 2017:DHC:5197-DB. 11. To be noted, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short "CIT(A)"] had deleted the disallowance amounting to Rs. 1,89,45,379/-. The CIT(A), in this regard, followed the decision of the Tribunal in respondent/assessee's case concerning AY 2006-07 to 2008-09. 12. Significantly, the decision of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs. 1230.02 crore as against the expenditure of Rs. 94.80 crore in the preceding year. On the perusal of details it was observed that the assessee had not shown any income during the year in respect of (i) Medianet: (ii) content selling: and (iii) sale of standalone publication. On being called upon to explain the reasons for not shown income from these sources, the assessee stated that the Medianet business consisted of a PR brand which was managed by the assessee company on behalf of its holding company, Benett Coleman and Co. Ltd till 30.09.2004. The holding company withdrew this right from the assessee company from 30.09.2004 and handed over this business to a new group company called Optimal Media solutions Ltd. After the termination ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aining expenses of Rs. 16,12,31,000/-. This disallowance was deleted in the first appeal. The revenue is aggrieved against such deletion. Having heard the rival submissions in the light of the material placed on record, it is observed that the AO made the disallowance by retaining the percentage of expenses to the revenue at 62.8%. This was done in accordance with the percentage of expenses incurred by the assessee for the AY 2004-05 when the assessee was having these business from its holding company. Such businesses were withdrawn by the holding company from the assessee w.e.f 1.10.2004. The opinion of the AO that though there was no income to the assessee from these businesses, still it was incurring expenses for them, is unfounded. On a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dered by the Tribunal. The said expenditure was claimable by the respondent/assessee under Section 37(1) of the 1961 Act. 14. As regards the proposed question "C", it may be noted that the Assessing Officer (AO) took the view that depreciation on software should be calculated at the rate of 25% instead of 60%. 15. The CIT(A), following the decision taken by his predecessor for AY 2009-10, which was in favour of the respondent/assessee, deleted the disallowance. 15.1. The deletion of disallowance made by the CIT(A) was confirmed by the Tribunal by following its decision for AY 2006-07 to AY 2008-09. 16. It appears that vis-à-vis this issue, the matter was not carried by the appellant/revenue in appeal to this court. 17.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ary and integral for the working of hardware are eligible for depreciation @ 60%, as was claimed by the assessee. We, therefore, approve the view taken by the ld. CIT(A) in deleting this disallowance." 19. The rule of consistency should prevail vis-à-vis proposed question C. 20. As regards the proposed question "D", the deleted disallowance includes Rs. 1,79,30,749/- towards software charges/software expenditure and Rs. 44,82,687/-, which was accorded as depreciation, upon the AO treating it as capital expenditure. 21. Thus, the treatment of this disallowance ordered by the AO will depend on whether software expenditure is treated as money expended on revenue or on capital account. 21.1. The coordinate bench of this court....