Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that the Tribunal was right in holding that the licence fee paid to the Department of Telecommunications by the assessee was not capital expenditure but revenue expenditure following the view taken in the assessee’s own case for assessment year 2007-08. Court also held that the Department, having not laid the foundation for its case that any of the conditions as stipulated by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Woodward Governor India P Ltd. [2009] 312 ITR 254 (SC) had not been fulfilled, could not, for the first time, without even taking a ground in the appeal, contend that the loss which accrued to the assessee on account of the foreign currency fluctuation could not be claimed by it as a business loss under section 37 (1) of the Act. (AY. 2010-11)
PCIT v. HCL Comnet Systems and Services Ltd. (2021) 433 ITR 251 (Delhi)(HC)
S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Capital or revenue-Licence fee paid to Department of Telecommunications is allowable as revenue expenditure-Loan for revenue purposes-Fluctuation loss-Allowable in year of increase in rate-Question cannot be raised even without taking in the grounds raised before the High Court. [S. 260A]