Dismissed

Pro Commissioner of Income TAX-6 v. Manupatra Information Solution

Delhi HC18 Jan 2016ITA/77/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Income Tax Appeal against the ITAT order classifying database development costs as revenue expenditure. The appeal was rejected due to extraordinary delay and because no substantial question of law arose, referencing a prior decision on similar software upgrade expenses.

What did the court decide?

The application for condonation of delay is dismissed, and the appeal against the income-tax order is dismissed on merits.

Pro Commissioner of Income TAX-6 Vs Manupatra Information… — Specific Performance | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

32.

¶4

- ITA 77/2016 & CM No.1641/2016

¶5

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 ..... Appellant Through: Mr Ashok K. Manchanda, Senior Standing Counsel.

¶6

versus

¶7

MANUPATRA INFORMATION SOLUTION ..... Respondent Through: Mr G. C. Srivastava, with Mr Daksh S. Bhardwaj, Advocates.

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 18.01.2016

¶11

There is a delay of 1250 days in re-filing the appeal. The explanation offered is the standard one regarding the practice directions issued by this

¶12

Court for e-filing of the appeals. As has already been observed by this Court in several orders, the practice directions were issued after consultation with the bar and after giving sufficient time for the bar to get acquainted with the requirement of e-filing. Additionally, the Court has also provided scanning machines at the filing counter so that no difficulty is caused to the bar for switching over to the system of e-filing. In any event, the delay of over three years on this ground is wholly unacceptable.

¶13

ITA 77/2016 Page 1 of 3

¶14

Consequently, the Court is not persuaded to condone the extraordinary delay of 1250 days in re-filing the appeal. The application seeking condonation of the delay of 1250 days in re-filing the appeal is dismissed.

¶15

Nevertheless the case has also been examined on merits. The question sought to be urged by the Revenue in the present appeal which is directed against the order dated 16^th December, 2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA No.1483/Del/2011 for the Assessment Year ‘AY’2007-08 is whether the ITAT erred in deleting the expenditure of Rs.63,70,259/- being ‘database development cost’ by accepting the Assessee’s case that it was a revenue expenditure.

¶16

It is pointed out by Mr Srivastava, learned Counsel for the Assessee, that this very question from the earlier AY 2006-07 in the Assessee’s very case has been answered against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee by this Court by the decision dated 28^th May, 2012 in ITA No.318/2012 and to the best of his knowledge no appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the said decision. A copy of the said order has been shown to the Court. It is seen that the Court has categorically held that software improvement is a “constant process” and expenditure has to be incurred repeatedly and,

¶17

ITA 77/2016 Page 2 of 3

¶18

therefore, the Court was unable to agree that the software upgradation expenses should be treated as capital expenses.

¶19

No substantial question of law arises. Accordingly, the appeal is

¶20

dismissed both on the ground of extraordinary delay of 1250 days in refiling the appeal as well as on merits.

¶21

S.MURALIDHAR, J

¶22

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

¶23

JANUARY 18, 2016 MK

¶24

ITA 77/2016 Page 3 of 3

Pro Commissioner of Income TAX-6 v. Manupatra Information Solution

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pro Commissioner of Income TAX-6 v. Manupatra Information Solution

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (CENTRAL-2) Vs Satkar Roadlines Pvt. Ltd. (Now Known as Aden Marketing Pvt. Ltd.)

Thukral Steel Corporation through Its Proprietor Daman Thukral Vs Commissioner Value Added Tax & Anr.

Dushyant Kumar Jain Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.

Pacific Shipping through Its Auth. Representative Nadim Nasir Khanda Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import) Icd, Tughlakabad & Anr.

Harpreet Singh & Anr. Vs Income Tax Department & Anr.

Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. Vs UOI and Ors.