TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 368X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 021 - G.S. Pannu, President And Kul Bharat, Member (J) For the Appellant : Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. and Deepesh Jain, CA For the Respondents : Vinay Kumar Karan, CIT DR and Kumar Padmapani Bora, Sr. DR ORDER Per Kul Bharat, JM These three appeals pertaining to the Assessment Years 2011-12, 2013-14 2014-15 are directed against the different orders of the Ld. CIT(A)-39, New Delhi, dated 12/6/2017 and Ld. CIT(A)-22, New Delhi, dated 20/10/2017. In all these appeals identical grounds have been raised. Therefore, all the appeals are taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by way of consolidated order for the sake of brevity. 2. First we take up the appeal in ITA No. 5827/Del/2017 for the Assessment Year 2011-12. 3. The solitary effective ground in this appeal reads as under:- Whether on the facts and circumstances of case the Ld. CIT(A) has not erred in deleting disallowance of ₹ 5,01,85,899/- of capitalization of licenses fee which give assessee company long term right to use telecommunication spectrum and the annual extension of the same be considered as capital expenditures. 4. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal in earlier years. Therefore, the Ld. CIT (A) has rightly deleted the addition. He submitted that the issue in question is no more res-integra and has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Bharti Hexacom. 9. We have heard rival submission and perused the material available on record. We find that Ld. CIT(A) has decided the issue by holding as under:- 5.2a It is observed from the appellant's submissions, both at the assessment stage and at the appellate stage, that the revenue share fee was for the operation and usage of the rights given under the licence and did not result in creation of any capital asset or advantage. It contended that DOT granted it a licence to operate closed user groups domestic 64 KBPS data network via INSAT Satellite System using VSAT. It was argued by the AR of the appellant that by virtue of the impugned payment of the licence fee to DOT, the appellant only obtained a year to year right to provide VSAT services -the license was granted initially for a period of ten years and was extendable bey ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Empire Jute Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 124 ITR 1 (SC). Alembic Chemical Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 177 ITR 377 (SC). Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. vs. CIT (1994) 206 ITR 13 (Bom). CIT vs. Assam Oil Co. Ltd. 107 ITR 261 (Cal). Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited vs. Addl. CIT 100 TTJ1 (ITAT Delhi). ITO vs. Evergrowth Telecom Ltd. in ITA No. 5652/Mum/07 (ITAT Mumbai). CIT vs. Kirloskar Computer Services 221 Taxman 391 (Kar). Idea Cellular vs. ACIT 65 SOT 15 (ITAT Mumbai). Hutchison Essar Telecom Ltd. vs. JCIT 149 TTJ 673 (ITAT Mumbai). Bharti Airtel Ltd. vs. ACIT41 SOT 175 (ITAT Mumbai). Comsat Max vs. DCIT (2009) 29 SOT436 (ITAT Delhi). CIT vs. Mihir Textiles Ltd. (1994) 206 ITR 112 (Guj). Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. JCIT 81 ITD 456 (ITAT Mumbai. Rajasthan State Mines and Manuals Ltd. vs. DCIT 49 ITD 418 (ITAT Jaipur). CIT vs. Associated Cement Companies Ltd. 172 ITR 257 (SC). In most of the above cases, it has been held that the annual payment made to an authority (Government) for the business operations of the assessee (businessman) is revenue in nature and allowable u/s. 37(1) of the Act - the le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,333/-), the disallowance made in the impugned order is deleted. The grounds at (III) and (Ilia) to (lid) above on this point, are allowed. 10. From the above, it is evident that the Ld. CIT(A) had followed the decision rendered in the Assessment Year 2008-09. The issue travelled up to the stage of the Tribunal and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in ITA No. 2273/Del/2014 [Assessment Year 2008-09] dismissed the appeal of Revenue by holding as under:- 25. At the very outset, we have to state that pursuant to the directions of the Id. CIT(A), the Assessing Officer, vide order dated 08.03,.2015 passed u/s. 250 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, deleted the addition made on account of licence fee paid to DOT by following the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bharti Hexacom [supra]. Since the quarrel has now been settled, we do not find any merits in the appeals of the Revenue. The same are accordingly, dismissed. 11. The Revenue has not brought to our notice that the decision of the Tribunal pertaining to Assessment Year 2008-09 was reversed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The Ld. CIT (A) has given a finding on fact that the Revenue share fee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
