The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -7 v. Oxigen Services India Pvt. Ltd Through None
High Court
09 Jul 2019 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -7 v. Oxigen Services India Pvt. Ltd Through None
Date of order
09 Jul 2019
Assessment year(s)
2009-2010
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -7 v. Oxigen Services India Pvt. Ltd Through None, the High Court (2019) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
$~50
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ ITA 600/2019
THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 ..... Appellant Through Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate
versus
OXIGEN SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD Through None
..... Respondent
CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH
%
O R D E R09.07.2019
1. This Appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 7[th]January, 2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal („ITAT‟) in ITA No. 3812/Del/2015 for the Assessment Year 2009-2010.
2. Two questions are sought to be urged by the Revenue. The first concerns the ITAT upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [„CIT(A)‟] deleting the disallowance of depreciation claimed at a higher rate of 60% on point of service (POS) terminals by the Assessee.
3. As far as this question is concerned, the issue stands decided against the Revenue by the decision of this Court dated 20[th] September, 2016 in ITA No.542/2016 (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 v. Connaught
Plaza Restaurant (P) Ltd.) Consequently, no question is framed in this regard.
4. The other issue concerns the ITAT upholding the decision of the CIT (A) in deleting the disallowance of the expense incurred in Software development and upgradation. The ITAT rightly upheld the order of the CIT (A) treating the expenditure as revenue in nature and allowed it as such. Consequently, the Court is not persuaded to frame any question in this regard as well.
5. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
JULY 09, 2019 mw
TALWANT SINGH, 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.