The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 v. M/S Honda Siel Power Product Ltd

$~1 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +ITA 127/2017 & CM Nos. 4906-4907/2017 THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4..... AppellantThrough: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Adv.Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Adv. versus M/S HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCT LTD...... RespondentThrough: Mr. Neeraj Jain and Mr. Aniket D.Agrawal, Advs. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHATHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRIO R D E R%07.03.2017 The Revenue urges two questions of law in this appeal underSection 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Firstly, it is argued thatthe AMP expenditure could not have been allowed by the ITAT. Onthis the ITAT had followed its previous orders as well as the orders ofthis Court of the previous years’ in the assessee’s case. This questionof law, therefore, does not arise. As far as the other issue i.e. treatment of expenditure towardsshifting/ relocation are concerned, out of the eleven heads, the AOaccepted eight and added back amounts towards three, holding thatthere is ultimately an enduring capital advantage.The ITAT tooknote of the several judgments of the High Courts. In doing so, theITAT also took note of the Revenue’s contention which had reliedupon the older decisions of the various High Courts. Revenue relies upon the ruling in Sitalpur Sugar Works V. CIT (1963) 49 ITR (SC)160 to say that shifting and relocation expenses can never be treatedas falling in the Revenue’s stream. This Court is of the opinion that the ITAT in the impugneddecision cannot be faulted and given the later developmentsespecially the law declared in Empire Jute Co. Ltd. vs CIT (1980)124 ITR 1 (SC) and Alembic Chemicals Works Co. Ltd. vs CIT(1989) 177 ITR 377 (SC). In these circumstances, no questions of law arise. The appealis, therefore, dismissed. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J MARCH 07, 2017/kk NAJMI WAZIRI, J