Case LawHigh Court › Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -6...

Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -6 v. M/S Nokia Siemens Network India P. Ltd

High Court 23 Jul 2019 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -6 v. M/S Nokia Siemens Network India P. Ltd
Date of order
23 Jul 2019
Assessment year(s)
2005-2006
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -6 v. M/S Nokia Siemens Network India P. Ltd, the High Court (2019) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 339 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned and the application is disposed of.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

$~88 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ ITA 684/2019 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6..... Appellant Through Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate versus M/S NOKIA SIEMENS NETWORK INDIA P. LTD...... Respondent Through Mr. Deepak Chopra, Ms. Rashi Khanna & Mr. Pratishtha Singh, Advocates CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH O R D E R% 23.07.2019 CM Appl. No. 32808/2019 (delay) 1. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 339 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned and the application is disposed of. ITA 684/2019 2. The appeal filed by the Revenue is against an order dated 9[th] February, 2018 passed by the ITAT in ITA No. 2053/Del/2013 for the Assessment Year 2005-2006. 3. The question sought to be urged by the Revenue is as under: “Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case and also prevailing law, the Tribunal was justified in affirming the CIT( A)'s findings that the Respondent Assessee's claim for amortisation of spares was not excessive?” 4. The ITAT has noticed in the impugned order that the Assessee has consistently adopted the straight line method to determine depreciation in respect of spares. Based on the rule of consistency therefore, the ITAT found no reason to interfere with the order passed by the CIT (A) in favour of the Assessee. The Court for the same reason also finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order of the ITAT. 5. No substantial question of law arises. The appeal is dismissed. S. MURALIDHAR, J. JULY 23, 2019 mw TALWANT SINGH, J.
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan