TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 1259X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... directed by the Hon'ble High Court vide their order dated 19.12.2013 in ITA no.- 1679/Del/2010 in the case of CIT vs Bharti Cellular Ltd. along with batch of other appeals including ITA No.-893/Del/2010 wherein the Revenue has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the ITAT on 29.05.2009. 2. Ld. AR inviting attention to the order of the Hon'ble High Court submitted that the Remand in the present proceedings is limited to the issue addressed in Ground No.-4 raised by the assessee in its appeal. It was his submission that the issue had been decided by the ITAT in assessee's favour however the Hon'ble High Court has remanded the same to the ITAT with the direction to decide the issue on facts wherein the Hon' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the variable revenue sharing fee paid pursuant to the migration of the assessee to the New Telecom Policy of 1999 is revenue expenditure, consequently, the interest on the licence fee paid would also be in the revenue field. In the circumstances, the AO is directed to delete the said addition and grant the assessee benefit of this expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Act. In the circumstances, Ground No.4 is allowed. 3.2. Apart from other issues the correctness of the above finding was challenged by the Revenue before the Hon'ble High Court in appeal. The Hon'ble High Court considering the arguments on facts and examining the variable licenses fee paid by the respondents under the India Telecom Act, 1885, and the Indian Wireless Fee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he facts on the said aspect are not lucid and clear. In the assessment- year 2000-01, the assessment year subject matters of ITA 893/2010 and 1333/2010 in the case of Bharti Cellular Ltd. and Bharti Telenet Ltd. now known as Bharti Infotel Ltd., the assessee had paid interest of ₹ 1.75 crores and ₹ 2.24 crores to the Department of Telecommunication for delayed payment of license fee. The Assessing Officer disallowed the said payments observing that these were on capital account. The assessment order records that no details had been furnished and the expenses pertained to prior period. The payment was considered to be capital in nature because the license fee was also capital expenditure. 51. Commissioner (Appeals) in the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of law, therefore, is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the respondent-assessee but with an order of remand to decide the controversy afresh keeping in view the observations made above. 5. In view of the above and taking into consideration the submissions advanced by the Ld. AR on behalf of the assessee which were agreed to by the Ld. CIT DR, we confirm the finding arrived at by the CIT(A in para 5.3 to the extent that the interest accrued on delayed payments on the license fee is a capital expenditure u/s 35ABB since the payment was for the period prior to 31.07.1999. Accordingly we dismiss the ground raised by the assessee. The order is pronounced in the open court on 02nd of January 2015. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
