9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 141X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench. 2. The Tribunal was concerned with two appeals Income Tax Appeal No.4180/Mum/2003 for assessment year 1999-2000 which is of the assessee and Income Tax Appeal No. 4485/Mum/2003 for the same assessment year and it is by the revenue. 3. We are concerned in this case in so far as the legality and validity of the order dated 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for purchase of basic software necessary for computer operations and these software are essential operating softwares which can be used for a number of years and the benefit of which is enduring in nature and hence rightly treated by the A.O. as capital expenditure ? c) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in deleting the disallowance made under se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... med as substantial questions of law. If the assessee had licence to use software and it was not capital asset according to it, then, based on that stand of the assessee, which was countered by the revenue, a partial relief came to be granted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 5. The assessee desired complete relief and not getting the same had urged that the questions (1) & (2) raised t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to this Court. We can understand that a concession of the representative of the revenue on law would not bind it. However, a concession purely on facts would definitely bind the revenue / department and it cannot resile from the same. Merely because the revenue effect or the tax amount is found enormous, we are not required to take a contrary stand. There i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd that the present appeal could be entertained. The same does not raise any substantial question of law. 7. The last two questions are answered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. V/s. DCIT reported in (2010) 328 ITR 81. 8. In the light of above, this appeal does not raise any substantial question of law and it is dismissed. No costs. 9. While ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
