Bombay High Court
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 vs Icici Securities Primary Dealership on 6 February, 2019
Bench: Akil Kureshi, M.S. Sanklecha
7. os itxa 1397-16.doc
R.M. AMBERKAR
(Private Secretary)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
O.O.C.J.
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1397 OF 2016
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -1 .. Appellant
Versus
ICICI Securities Primary Dealership .. Respondent
...................
Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Appellant
Mr. Niraj Sheth i/by Mr. Atul Jasani for the Respondent
...................
CORAM : AKIL KURESHI &
M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ.
DATE : FEBRUARY 6, 2019.
P.C.:
1. Revenue is in the appeal against the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("the Tribunal" for short) dated 15.9.2015 raising following question of law for our consideration:-
" Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 63,90,000/- being software expenses claimed under Section 36(1)(xi) of the Act by holding that the requirement of filing of Audit Report along with return of income is directory and the same is not mandatory and holding that the expenses got crystallized during this year and therefore, these expenses, pertain to the year under consideration, and have been incurred during the year?"
2. The question can be split into two parts. The first part 1 of 2 ::: Uploaded on - 08/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2019 22:30:55 :::
7. os itxa 1397-16.doc relates to Revenue's contention that the software expenses could not have been allowed since the assessee had not filed the audit report in the prescribed form along with the return. The Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] ("CIT(A)" for short) and the Tribunal, however, held that filing of audit report along with return is not mandatory but directory and noticed that the assessee had filed such report during the course of the assessment proceedings. In that view of the matter, we do not find any error in the view of the Tribunal, particularly in view of the decision of this Court in case of CIT Vs. Shivanand Electronics1.
3. The second part of Revenue's objection pertains to the expenditure of Rs. 8.80 lacs which the Assessing Officer argued had not crystallized during the year under consideration. The Tribunal, however, on evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the expenditure had in fact crystallized during the current year. No question of law, therefore, arises. The appeal is dismissed.
[ M.S. SANKLECHA, J. ] [ AKIL KURESHI, J ]
1 (1994) 209 ITR 63 (Bom)
2 of 2
::: Uploaded on - 08/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2019 22:30:55 :::