Commissioner of Incometax v. Virtual Soft Systems Ltd.

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2012 TaxPub(DT) 0921 (Del-HC) : (2012) 341 ITR 0593 : (2012) 205 TAXMAN 0257 : (2012) 067 DTR 0410 CIT v. Virtual Soft Systems Ltd. IN THE DELHI HIGH COURT SANJAY KISHAN KAUL & RAJIV SHAKDHER, JJ. ITA Nos. 216, 398, 403, 404 and 680 of 2011 7 February, 2012 Appellant by : Rashmi Chopra Respondent by : S. Krishnan JUDGMENT *Rajiv Shakdher, J.* The captioned appeals lay challenge to a common judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, New Delhi (in short the Tribunal) passed on 19-2-2010. The only point raised in the captioned appeals is: whether an assessees leased rental income could be allowed to be reduced by taking recourse to lease equalization charges. 2. It is relevant to note that before the Tribunal the assessment years (in short AY) in issue were: assessment years 1996-97 to 2000-01. Thus, the Tribunal, by virtue of the impugned judgment dealt in all with five (5) appeals being ITA Nos. 117, 118, 119, 120 & 2292/Del/2006&04. In so far as the first appeal was concerned, that is, the one relating to 1996-97, the challenge before the Tribunal was laid vis-a-vis the order dated 26-3-2004, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (in short CIT) under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Income Tax Act). The issue on merits was the same as indicated hereinabove by us. As regards the remaining four (4) appeals, what was challenged before the Tribunal was a common order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short the Commissioner (Appeals)) dated 15-9-2003 pertaining to assessment year 1997-98 to 2000-01. In these appeals as indicated in the judgment of the Tribunal, there were two issues raised. The first issue, pertained to the validity of the re-assessment proceedings carried out in the case, while the second issue, on merits, was the same as indicated above by us. 3. It is in this factual background that the Tribunal, in the first instance, dealt with the issue on merits and, having come to the conclusion that the contention of the assessee had to be sustained, the validity of the order passed in assessment year 1996-97 under section 263 of the Income Tax Act or, the validity of the reassessment proceedings, in so far as, the remaining four assessment years were concerned, was not examined, as they had become, according to the Tribunal, 'of academic interest'. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2012 TaxPub(DT) 0921 (Del-HC) : (2012) 341 ITR 0593 : (2012) 205 TAXMAN 0257 : (2012) 067 DTR 0410

CIT v. Virtual Soft Systems Ltd.

IN THE DELHI HIGH COURT

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL & RAJIV SHAKDHER, JJ.

ITA Nos. 216, 398, 403, 404 and 680 of 2011

7 February, 2012

Appellant by : Rashmi Chopra

Respondent by : S. Krishnan

JUDGMENT

Rajiv Shakdher, J.

The captioned appeals lay challenge to a common judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, New Delhi (in short the Tribunal) passed on 19-2-2010. The only point raised in the captioned appeals is: whether an assessees leased rental income could be allowed to be reduced by taking recourse to lease equalization charges.

2. It is relevant to note that before the Tribunal the assessment years (in short AY) in issue were: assessment years 1996-97 to 2000-01. Thus, the Tribunal, by virtue of the impugned judgment dealt in all with five (5) appeals being ITA Nos. 117, 118, 119, 120 & 2292/Del/2006&04. In so far as the first appeal was concerned, that is, the one relating to 1996-97, the challenge before the Tribunal was laid vis-a-vis the order dated 26-3-2004, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (in short CIT) under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Income Tax Act). The issue on merits was the same as indicated hereinabove by us. As regards the remaining four (4) appeals, what was challenged before the Tribunal was a common order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short the Commissioner (Appeals)) dated 15-9-2003 pertaining to assessment year 1997-98 to 2000-01. In these appeals as indicated in the judgment of the Tribunal, there were two issues raised. The first issue, pertained to the validity of the re-assessment proceedings carried out in the case, while the second issue, on merits, was the same as indicated above by us.

3. It is in this factual background that the Tribunal, in the first instance, dealt with the issue on merits and, having come to the conclusion that the contention of the assessee had to be sustained, the validity of the order passed in assessment year 1996-97 under section 263 of the Income Tax Act or, the validity of the reassessment proceedings, in so far as, the remaining four assessment years were concerned, was not examined, as they had become, according to the Tribunal, 'of academic interest'.