Cit v. Career Launcher (India) Ltd

SANJIV KITANNA, J AlPRrX, !9,2012 ' lvldlhs ,' .l || rT A 939 12010, 9 | | l20l | & 9261201 1 Page 36 of36 t1l a I F -i l'-'"--

?K IN THE I{IGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA No.926l20ll Reserved on: 21" March, 2012 Date of Decision: Igth April, 2012 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sanjeev Rajpal, Sr. Standing Counsel. Versus CAREER LAUNCIIER INDIA LTD. ....Respondents Through: Mr. Ajuy Vohra with Ms. Kavita Jha and Mr. Vrjay Kumar Punna, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KIIANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR R.V. EASWAR. J.: For orders See ITA 93912010. |rrt N r.__-t . R.V:EASWAR, J 4ttu1 .ll q-. t- t , SANJIV KIIANNAO J APRrL t9,2ot2 /vld/trs nt.gienon Page I ofl + + + L NN T'X{E ]IIIGH COUR.T OF'DEI-,HI ,{T NEW DEI-HI i trT'A No,939/20110 trT'A. No.911/20nX l lltA No.926l2011.1 ;' Rt)served on; 21'' March,, 2012 Date of Decision; 19't' April, 2012 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .....Petitioner Through: Ir,4r. Sanjeev Rajpal, Sr. Standing Counsel. Versus CAREER LAI.INCHER INDIA LTD. ....Respondents Through: Mr. Aiay Vohra with Ms. Kavita Jha and Mr. Vijay Kumar Punna, Advocates. COR,AM: IION'tsI.E MR.. JIIST'NCE SANJIV KH[.{NNA HON'tsLE MR..fUSTICE R..V. EASWiIR [T.V. EASWAR. J.: These are three appeals filed by the CIT under sec.260A of the Income Tax A.ct, hereinafter referred tr) as "the Act", against the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal", for the urr"pr-"nt years'2004-05, Z'OOS- 06 and 2006-07. The Tribunal has passed! separate order on26't'June 2009 for the assessment year 2004-05 in ITA No.l047lDELl2008, whereas for the assessment years 2005-06 and2006-07 it has passed a rT A 939 120 1 0, 9 1 I l20t | &. 926120 | | Page I of36 I t ! J i: : 'l common order on 27'h December, 2010 in cross-appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue in ITA Nos.402 4 8. 4925/DEL/2009 and ITA Nos. 523 & 524/DEL/2010. ii 2. On 28th July, 201| this court fiamed the following substantial questions of law in respect of the assessment year 2005-06 in ITA No.9IIl20I7: I "I. Whether the respondent was not liable to deduct the tax at source for the relevant yeier on account of the payment made by it to its franchiseds under Section I94C ' of the A6t, as held by the ITAT in the irnpugned order? II. Whether the assessing officer did not rightly reject the claim of the respondent making the addition of Rs.6,38,64,0I8/- to income of th.g respondent for the relevant year on account of non-cleduction of TDS in terms of section aO(a)(ia) of the Act'/ m. Whether the ITAT has rightly deleted the addition of Rs.33,22,000/- made by the 'assessing officer od account of disallowance of bonusi paid to its directors without payment of the dividend, in tenns of section 36(1Xii) of the Act? ' IV. Whether the clairn of the respondent for paying interest of Rs.22,07,I88/- in the releyant year to the Noida Authority on account of purchase clf land was allowable as revenue expenditure u/s 36(lxiii) of the Act?" 3. On 14'h November, 2011, the following substantial questions of law were framed by this court for the asse'ssment year 2006-07 in ITA No.926/2011: - tTA 939t2010,9tu20t1 & 926t2011 Page 2 of36 t r' o ( "(1) .Whether the respondent had failed/ neglected to deduct tax at source under Section 194C and accordingly Section aQ(A)(ia) of the of the (t1".) Income. Tax Act, - 196L is attracted? (2) Whether the Income Tax epplttate Tribunal is right in deleting addition of Rs.37,44,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of bonus paid to the Directors in terms of Sbction 36(1)(ii) of the Incotne Tax Act, 196l?" : 4. As regards the assessment year 200+-05 (ITA No.939l2010), the following substantial questions of lu* *"r. fi'amed by order clated 20tl' Septemb er,2010: "1. Whether the Tribunal is corrpct in allowing non- compete fee of Rs.5,40,000 payable by the assessee to Mr. Vrjay Kalyan Jha and Mr. Sujit as revenue expenditure solely on the basis of agreement period and " 'the mode of payment?" 2. Whether ITAT was correct in la,w in allowing interest of Rs.22 ,07 ,I88/- paid