TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 200X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3/Del/2010 - - - Dated:- 7-4-2012 - SHRI U.B.S. BEDI, AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, JJ. Department by : Sh. K.V.K. Singh, Sr. D.R. ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XIII, New Delhi dated 17.8.2010 pertaining to assessment year 2007-08. 2. The grounds raised read as under:- i) The order of Ld. CIT(A) is wrong, perverse, illegal and against the provisions of law, liable to be set aside. ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has erred in deleting the additions of Rs. 27,21,133/- on account of royalty. iii) The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any ground of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to year percentage comparison vis-a-vis sales was Rs. 51,93,418/-. Assessing Officer further observed that this should be amount of disallowance in the normal course. However, taking a considerate view and allowing a percentage increase of 40% over the previous year, royalty expenditures against an increase of 18.31% in sales, the disallowance is restricted to Rs. 27,21,133/-. Therefore, Assessing Officer held that an addition of Rs. 27,21,133/- is made to the total income of the assessee. 4. Against the above order the assessee appealed before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A). Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) deleted the addition holding as under:- The detailed submissions filed by the Authorised Representative from time to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would also differ from author to author and is based on the prevailing agreement therefore, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on an estimate basis, as has been done in the assessment order is not appropriate. The Ld. Authorised Representative has also provided detailed break up of royalty paid to each author during the year which totals to Rs. 1,86,78,711/- which is the royalty debited in appellant s account for the year. Thus, as the entire royalty payment is on revenue account and is not an item of capital expenditure and therefore the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer for Rs. 27,21,133/- is deleted. 5. Against the above order the Revenue is in appeal before us. 6. We have heard the Ld. Departmental Representa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
