IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
         ITA 568/2010  
 . 
 . 
 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX                ..... Appellant 
 Through :       Ms Prem Lata Bansal 
 . 
 versus 
 . 
 . 
 TEI TECHNOLOGIES P.LTD.                 ..... Respondent 
 Through :       None. 
 . 
 . 
 CORAM: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN 
 . 
 . 
 O R D E R 
                        13.05.2010 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 CM 5234/2010 
 . 
 Allowed, subject to just exceptions. 
 . 
 ITA 568/2010 
 . 
 This appeal is directed against the order dated 6.2.2009 passed by the 
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in respect of the assessment year 2003-2004 The 
 issue sought to be raised before us is whether the technical support fee 
 amounting to Rs 1,32,05,273/- paid by the assessee to Elentec Company Courier 
 and Tyco Investments Limited, Mauritius were in the nature of revenue or capital 
 expenditure.  The Assessing Officer held the same to be of a capital nature. 
 However, the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) relying upon the Tribunal?s 
 order in respect of the assessment year 2001-2002 held the same to be of revenue 
 nature.  The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, in turn, relied on its earlier order 
 in respect of the assessment year 2001-2002 and confirmed the view taken by the 
 Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals). 
 The revenue preferred an appeal before this Court in respect of the 
 Tribunal?s order pertaining to the assessment year 2001-2002 and the said appeal 
 was numbered as ITA 909/2007.  The same came up for hearing before this Court on 
 19.2.2008, when, placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Empire 
 Jute Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax,  [1980] 124 ITR 1, this Court 
 found that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had returned concurrent 
 findings of fact and the same did not require any interference.  This Court held 
 that no substantial question of law arose for its consideration. 
 Following the said decision dated 19.02.2008, in respect of the earlier 
 year, the present appeal is also dismissed. 
 . 
 BADAR DURREZ AHMED,J 
 . 
 . 
 V.K. JAIN, J 
 MAY  13, 2010/?sn? 
 . 
 . 
 $ 3