HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD
FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO I.T.T.A. NO.487 OF 2014 DATED:30.7.2014 Between:
The Commissioner of Income Tax – IV Hyderabad … Appellant And M/s. Nagarjuna Agrichem Limited Plot No.6, Nagarjuna Hills Punjagutta Hyderabad … Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO I.T.T.A. NO.487 OF 2014 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is sought to preferred and admitted against the judgment of the learned Tribunal dt.13.11.2013 in I.T.A. No.285/Hyd/2011, for the assessment year 2004-2005, on the following suggested questions of law:
1. “Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct in holding that expenditure incurred on acquisition of licence for use of software for 25 years is a one-time expenditure, hence revenue in nature?
2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to include the ‘deemed export sales’ in the ‘export turnover’ for the purpose of calculating deduction under section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, without appreciating the decision of the Bangalore Bench of the ITAT in Wipro Ltd. v. D.C.I.T., wherein it was held that the assessee was not eligible for deduction on ‘deemed export sales’?
3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct in allowing the ‘provisions for bad debts’ as an allowable expenditure, without appreciating that the assessee- company had not written off the same in its books of account?”
Having noted the suggested questions of law, this appeal is liable to be dismissed as first two of the suggested questions of law are squarely covered by the decision of this Court dt.17.6.2014 in I.T.T.A. No.366 of 2014. The third ground is of course taken care of by the learned Tribunal observing that the assessee has taken conscious decision for writing off bad debts on account of impossibility of recovery of debts.
Hence, we dismiss this appeal. There will be no order as to costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J 30.7.2014 bnr