Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Calcutta High Court

Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S. Intelsys Technologies Pvt. Ltd on 16 August, 2016

ORDER SHEET
                       GA NO.1698 OF 2016
                              WITH
                       ITAT NO.193 OF 2016
                 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                SPECIAL JURISDICTION(INCOME-TAX)
                          ORIGINAL SIDE


   PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-1, KOLKATA
                                                      Versus
                        M/S. INTELSYS TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.


 BEFORE:

 The Hon'ble JUSTICE GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA

 The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA

 Date : 16th August, 2016.


                                                  MR.P.DUDHORIA, ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT
                                   MR.P.P.BISHWAL, MR.ARIF ALI, ADVOCATES FOR RESPONDENT

The Court : The subject matter of challenge is a judgment and order dated 11th December, 2015 by which the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal "B" Bench, Kolkata dismissed an appeal preferred by the revenue registered as ITA No.2287/Kol/2010 pertaining to the assessment year 2006-07. The aggrieved revenue has come up in appeal.

Both the CIT(A) and the learned Tribunal found that the sum of Rs.1,02,39,694/- was spent in purchasing the software which the 2 assessee had wrongly described in its books of account as "software development charges" but on the basis of evidence, the CIT(A) held as follows :-

"The A/R had furnished the relevant records/documents before which shows that the vendors supplied canned softwares to the assessee which was required for the assessee's business. Regarding the existence of a purchase account in which the assessee did not debit the purchase of canned software, I am of the opinion that there is no wrong in debiting the purchase of canned software under the account head "Software Development Charges" which was the policy maintained all through by the assessee. In the circumstances this ground could go in favour of the appellant. The Ground is allowed."

The learned Tribunal agreed with the views expressed by the CIT and it is against this order that the revenue has come up in appeal. Mr.Dudhoria is unable to point out any mistake in point of law. We are, as such, not inclined to admit the appeal, which is accordingly, dismissed.

(GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA, J.) (ARINDAM SINHA, J.) sb.