2016 (7) TMI 1278

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dicial Member) And Anil Chaturvedi (Accountant Member) For the Revenue : K. Madhusudan, Sr.DR For the Assessee : S. N. Soparkar, AR ORDER Anil Chaturvedi (Accountant Member) This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-IV, Ahmedabad dated 29.03.2000 for Assessment Year 1996-97. 2. Facts as culled out from the material on record are as under:- 2.1. Assessee is a company stated to be engaged in the business of development of software and packaged software products. It filed its return of income for AY 1996-1997 on 22.11.96 declaring total income at Rs NIL. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter assessment was framed u/s. 143(3) vide order dated 31 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ught on record by the Assessing Officer. 4. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of ₹ 97,798/- out of motor car expenses, ₹ 35,690/- out of motor car depreciation and ₹ 87,000/- out of telephone expenses, without appreciating the facts of the case and the materials brought on record by the Assessing Officer. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the decision of the Assessing Officer. 6. It is therefore, prayed that the order of the ld. CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer may be restored to the above extent. 3. At the outset, Ld DR informed that there is delay of 4013 days (about 11 years) in fil .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eous application was moved by Assessee before Hon ble Tribunal, wherein it was contended that the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue for granting relief by CIT(A) to Assessee with respect to disallowance of Research and Development Expenditure as well as Royalty payment was factually incorrect and was not subject matter of the impugned order but was adjudicated in order passed by CIT(A) u/s 154 of the Act. It was therefore contended that the order of Tribunal be rectified. The Hon ble Tribunal vide order dated 4.4.2008 agreed with the submissions of the Assessee and held that Tribunal had mistakenly decided on the issue of Research and Development expenses and disallowance of Royalty expenses and hence the grounds of Revenue in respect .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X