Full Text
ITA 1405/2018 and 1423/2018
THEPR.COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX -3 Appellant
Through: Ms. Vibhoti Malhotra, Jr. Standing Counsel with Mr.Sanampreet Singh,Advocate,
Through:Mr.Vishal Kalra,Advocate.
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
20.12.2018 CM No.51378/2018 in ITA No.1405/2018
CM No.52022/2018 and 52023/2018 in ITA No.1423/2018
Learned counsel for the respondent-assessee does not oppose these applications for condonation of delay. Accordingly, the applications for condonation ofdelay are allowed.
These appeals by the Revenue in the case of Ericsson India Private
Limited relate to the Assessment Yeai32008-09 and 2009-10.
ORDER
2. The common issue raised in the two appeals relates to "adding provision for gratuity and leave encashment"for the purpose ofcomputation ofincome under Section ^JB ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961. This issue is covered against the Revenue by earlier decision ofthis Court in ITA Nos. 543/2011,544/2011 and 728/2008.
3. However, Learned counsel for the Revenue has submitted that the Assessing Officer in the present case had also observed that the respondentassessee had not given proof that the provision for gratuity and leave encashment was on actuarial basis. Learned counsel for the respondent- 2018:DHC:8327-DB assessee, on the other hand, has drawn our attention to the balance sheet of the company wherein the auditor has specifically stated that the provision for gratuity and leave encashment was on actuarial basis. He has also submitted that the Dispute Resolution Panel had observed that the addition would not be made unless the Revenue had filed an appeal against the decision of the Delhi High Court. Admittedly, no appeals have been preferred against the decisions of the Delhi High Court. In these circumstances, we do not think any substantial question oflaw arises on the first aspect.
4. The second issue raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 1423/2018 (Assessment Year 2008-09) relates to disallowance of 10% of the sales promotion expenses which were treated as capital in nature. This issue is also covered againstthe Revenue videjudgement ofthis Court in the case of ITA No. 1285/2009, The Commissioner ofIncome Tax versus Sony India Private Limited dated 22"^* February,2012 and otherjudgements following this decision. SLP againstthe said decision,it is stated,has been dismissed.
6. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to issue notice in these appeals,which are dismissed. ^,, V/t SANJIV KHANNA,J. ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI,J.