* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment reserved on: 13.09.2011
% Judgment delivered on: 04.11.2011
+ ITA No. 484/2011
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ...... APPELLANT
Vs
M/S AMWAY INDIA ENTERPRISES ..... RESPONDENT
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Mr Abhishek Maratha and Ms. Anshul Sharma
For the Respondent: Mr M.S. Syali, Sr. Advocate with Ms Mahua Kalra, Ms.
Husnal Syali and Mr. Rahul Sateeja
CORAM :-
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment ?
2. To be referred to Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ?
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
1. The captioned appeal pertains to the assessment year
2003-2004. In this appeal, the following issues arise for
consideration :-
(i). Whether expenses incurred by the assessee in the
sum of Rs.13,55,597/- on purchase of software
application were in the nature of capital expenses.
(ii). Whether expenses incurred in the sum of
Rs.1,47,71,172/- incurred on improvement ofITA 484/2011 Page 1 of 3
leasehold premises were in the nature of capital
expenditure? If so, whether the Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal (in short, the „Tribunal‟) erred in
remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer for
verification of the expenses incurred.
2. In so far as Issue no.(i) is concerned, we have noticed that
an expenditure of Rs.13,55,597/- was incurred on account of
software license purchased.
3. The Tribunal remanded this issue for decision by the
Assessing Officer in terms of the judgment of the Special Bench. In
our opinion, the matter now stands concluded by our judgment in
the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/s Asahi India Safety
Glass Ltd. in ITA Nos. 1110/2006 & 1111/2006.
4. As regards Issue no.(ii), the expenses incurred towards
improvement of leasehold premises which were situated at
Mumbai, Calcutta (now Kolkata) and Bangalore were incurred on
the following items :-
“flooring work, false ceiling, erection of temporary
partition, painting work and change of sanitary fittings,
etc.”
5. We find even this issue is covered by our judgment in the
case of Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs M/s Amway India
Enterprises in ITA Nos. 1344/2009 and 1363/2009.
ITA 484/2011 Page 2 of 3
6. In view of the above, no question of law arise for our
consideration and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There
shall, however, be no orders as to costs.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,J
NOVEMBER 04, 2011
yg
ITA 484/2011 Page 3 of 3
