Itxa/1213/2009 Of The Comm Issioner Of Income Tax- 7 , Mumbai v. M/S. One Hour Photo Pvt. Ltd
High Court
10 Aug 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/1213/2009 Of The Comm Issioner Of Income Tax- 7 , Mumbai v. M/S. One Hour Photo Pvt. Ltd
Date of order
10 Aug 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itxa/1213/2009 Of The Comm Issioner Of Income Tax- 7 , Mumbai v. M/S. One Hour Photo Pvt. Ltd, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: In the result, the appeal is dismissed in limini with no order as to costs.
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 AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1213 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax
..Appellant.
V/s.
M/s. One Hour Photo Pvt. Ltd.
..Respondent.
Mr. Suresh Kumar for appellant.
Mr. P.J. Pardiwala, senior Advocate with A.K. Jasani for respondent.
CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 10TH AUGUST, 2009.
P.C. :-
1.Heard learned counsel for the revenue. The appeal seeks to raise the following questions of law:-
a. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in setting aside the issue of disallowance of software expenditure of Rs.2,06,799/- which was treated as capital expenditure without appreciating the fact that right to use the software is intangible assets as per amended provision of section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and consequently eligible for depreciation @ 25% as rightly held by the assessing officer ?the ITAT was justified in setting aside the issue of disallowance of software expenditure of Rs.2,06,799/- which was treated as capital expenditure without appreciating the fact that right to use the software is intangible assets as per amended provision of section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and consequently eligible for depreciation @ 25% as rightly held by the assessing officer ?
b.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in allowing foreign tour expenses of Rs.72,502/- being personal in nature ignoring the fact that the assessee had admitted before the ITAT that business benefits or trade benefits which was derived from the tour of General Manager could not be established and further the assessee could not establish exemplary services rendered by the General Manager in the larger business interest of the assessee ?law, the ITAT was justified in allowing foreign tour expenses of Rs.72,502/- being personal in nature ignoring the fact that the assessee had admitted before the ITAT that business benefits or trade benefits which was derived from the tour of General Manager could not be established and further the assessee could not establish exemplary services rendered by the General Manager in the larger business interest of the assessee ?
c.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in
law, the ITAT was justified in quashing the order of the CIT(A) and AO and allowing deduction u/s.80IB without appreciating the fact that the printing of photographs did not involve any manufacturing activities and the assessee company did not employee 10 or more workers in manufacturing process ?
2.So far as question (a) is concerned, the Tribunal has remanded the matter for consideration afresh in the light of the judgment of the Delhi Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Amway Enterprises V/s. CIT, 301ITR (AT) 1. In this view of the matter, no substantial question of law arises.
3.So far as question (b) is concerned, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the factual aspects and has recorded finding of fact that it was allowable business expenditure. Even otherwise, considering the small amount of expenditure in the backdrop of the huge magnitude of turnover of the assessee company, we do not consider it a question worth consideration.
4.So far as the last question is concerned, the Tribunal has recorded finding of fact that the assessee has employed more than 10 persons in its manufacturing unit as such assessing officer could not have denied deduction under section 80IA. No fault can be found with the view taken. No substantial question of law is involved. In the result, the appeal is dismissed in limini with no order as to costs.
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)
(V.C.DAGA, J.)
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.