AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14, arise s against the CIT(A)-22, New Delhi’s in case No. 173/18-19/CIT(A)-22, New Delhi dated 30.04.2019, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
The Reve nue pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal:
“1.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erre d in restric ting the disallowance under Sectio n 14A r .w. Rule 8D to the extent of Rs.1,18,44,320/- as against the sum of Rs.5,16,73,689/-worked out by the A.O.?
2.On the facts and circums tances o f the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erre d in dele ting the addition of Rs.43,01,604/- made by the AO on account of disallowance of e xcess claim o f depreciation on so ftware expenses?
3.On the facts and circums tances o f the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in allo wing the additional claim of the assessee on account of Employees Stock Optio n Scheme compensation (ESOP e xpenses) amounting to Rs.96,248/-?”
Coming to the first and foremost islsue of section 14A r.w. Rule 8D disallowance which has been partly co nfirmed in the learned CIT(A)’s order, it emer ges during the course of hearing this tribunal’s learned co-ordinate bench order in the asse ssee’s appeal ITA No. 5954/Del/2024 has already settled the issue against the department thereby ho lding that no valid satisfaction qua it’s books of account had been recorded u/s 14A(2) of the Act. We thus ado pt judicial consistency to reject the Revenue’s first and foremost substantive ground in very terms therefore.
The Revenue’s second substantive ground herein seeks to revive the Assessing O fficer’s action disallowing the asse ssee’s excess depreciation claim representing software expenses. It could hardly dispute that this tr ibunal learned co-ordinate bench in assessee’s case itself in assessment year 201 2-13 involving ITA No. 6602/Del/2016 has already decided the same against the departme nt thereby holding that the software in question could not be in isolatio n so as to de-linked from the computers in operation. Rejected in very terms therefore.
Lastly comes the Revenue’s third substantive ground seeking to revive ESOP expenditure disallowance of Rs.96,248/-as deleted in the lower appellate discussion. Both the parties are again very fair in forming or that the tr ibunal’s above learned co-ordinate bench in assessment year 2012-13 has already rejected the Revenue’s very arguments in light of CIT Vs. Biocon L td. (2021) 131 taxmann.com 188 (SC) thereby treating the impugned claim of “ESOP” as an allo wable re venue expe nditure. Rejected accordingly.
All other ground or argument has not been pressed before us.
This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.