IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
  17.02.2011 
.
 Present:       Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue. 
.
.
.
 + ITA 287/2011 
.
 The assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer in the case of the 
 respondent/assessee pertaining to the assessment year 2004-05 was revised by the 
 Commissioner of Income Tax in exercise of power under Section 263 of the Income- 
 Tax Act  on as many as  on six counts which are as under:- 
 ?(i)       that as per the TDS certificate, the interest received was ` 
 18,26,962/- whereas in the Profit and Loss account the interest income of Rs, 
 9,86,911/- was credited.  The difference of ` 8,40,051/- remains to be taxed, 
 which has resulted in underassessment of income to the extent of ` 8.40 lakhs. 
.
 (ii)       Depreciation  on printers, modems and other accessories under the 
 head computers was allowed @ 60% as against admissible rate of 25% resulting in 
 the allowance of excess depreciation to the extent of  ` 11,19,43,370/- 
.
 (iii)       The genuineness of unsecured loans of ` 26,68,85,829/- was not 
 verified by the assessing Officer. 
.
 (iv)       It is not clear from the assessment records as to who the cost of 
 assets transferred from the  parent company Ms/ Apollo International  Limited 
 was determined for the purpose  of claiming depreciation by the assessee 
 company. 
.
 (v)       Commission of ` 77,74, 920/- included in the direct expenses as 
 claimed in the  return was allowed in the assessment without any inquiry or 
 verification. 
.
 (vi) Terminal installation expenses of ` 1,16,95,952/- included in that indirect 
 expenses appear to be of capital nature which were allowed as revenue 
 expenditure by the assessing Officer.? 
.
 This order of the Commissioner was challenged by the assessee before the 
 Tribunal and vide impugned decision the Tribunal has set aside the order of the 
 Commissioner except in respect of item no.(iii) above. 
 In so far as item No. (i) and (ii)        are concerned, there is no 
 quarrel that the order of the AO was in accordance with law and, therefore,  the 
 Revenue has not pressed that  in this appeal filed against the order of the 
 impugned order of the Tribunal.  However, it is the submission of Mr. Sabharwal, 
 learned counsel appearing for the Revenue in respect of item No. (iv) to (vi) 
 above, the commissioner had passed the order stating that there was no proper 
 verification on these claims by the Assessing Officer and  had thus remitted the 
 case back to the AO for proper verification.  The submission is that the 
 Tribunal while setting aside the order qua item No. (iv) to (vi) has not dealt 
 with this aspect at all.   After reading the para 7 of the impugned order, 
 prima facie we find that there is some substance in the submission of learned 
 counsel for the  Revenue  and  the matter needs consideration. 
 Notice to respondent, returnable on 27th April, 2011. 
.
 A.K. SIKRI, J. 
.
 M.L. MEHTA, J. 
 FEBRUARY 17, 2011skb 
.
 20#