Itta/320/2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iv v. M/S Planet Online Pvt Ltd
High Court
07 Aug 2013 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/320/2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iv v. M/S Planet Online Pvt Ltd
Date of order
07 Aug 2013
Assessment year(s)
2003-04
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itta/320/2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iv v. M/S Planet Online Pvt Ltd, the High Court (2013) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the orderof the Tribunal in holding that only 5% of the soft link charges areattributable to delivery of software attracting CI(iii) of Expl.2 toSec.10B of the Income Tax Act is not perverse and liable to be setaside?
Decision: Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. _____________________ K.J.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH ATHYDERABAD
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAAND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU
I.T.T.A. No. 320 of 2013
DATE: 07.08.2013
Between:
The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV,Hyderabad.
… Appellant
And
M/s. Planet Online Pvt., Ltd.,Secunderabad.
… Respondent
This Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU
I.T.T.A. No. 320 of 2013
JUDGMENT:(Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)
This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of the learnedTribunal, dated 16.11.2007, in relation to the assessment year 2003-04 and
sought to be admitted on the following suggested question of law.
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the orderof the Tribunal in holding that only 5% of the soft link charges areattributable to delivery of software attracting CI(iii) of Expl.2 toSec.10B of the Income Tax Act is not perverse and liable to be setaside?
Going by the aforesaid suggested question of law, it appears that therevenue’s grievance is with regard to fixing of 5% of the expenses attributedto delivery of software attracting. We are of the view that this is entirely adiscretionary order and such assessment is always based on discretion. Unless the discretion is found to be absurd, this Court in exercise of itsjurisdiction under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, shall notinterfere with the same. According to us, fixing of 5% of the expenses asdisallowance for delivery of software attracting is not irrational. We, therefore,do not find any element of law in this appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
_____________________
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ
________________
K. C. BHANU, J
Date: 07.08.2013ES
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.