9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 779X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e business of dealing in foreign exchange. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by it on 29-11-2008 declaring total income of Rs. 9,48,61,257/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the A.O. that the assessee has claimed depreciation of Rs. 1,84,65,131/- @ 25% on the dealership network purchased by it in the previous year relevant to A.Y. 2007-08 from AFL. The explanation offered by the assessee in support of the said claim for depreciation before the A.O. was that the AFL had vast representative/dealer network in India and the same was acquired by the assessee for expanding its base and business. It was contended that the said network was in the nature of licence and franchisee and the same was eligible for depreciation @ 25% u/s 32(1)(ii) of the Act. According to the A.O., the assessee, however, could not prove that any right of the nature as provided in section 32(1)(ii) of the Act was acquired by it and that the right or advantage so acquired was depreciable over a period of time. He, therefore, disallowed the claim of the assessee for depreciation on the dealership network. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and perusing the relevant material available on record, we are of the view that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. (supra) and respectfully following the same, we uphold the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) allowing the assessee's claim for depreciation at higher rate of 60% on printer, scanners, UPS etc. Ground No. 2 of Revenue's appeal is accordingly dismissed. 8. The solitary issue involved in the appeal of the assessee for A.Y. 2008- 09 relates to the disallowance of Rs. 3,35,822/- made by the A.O. u/s 14-A of the Act and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). 9. From the balance sheet of the assessee as on 31st March, 2008 filed along with the return of income, it was noticed by the A.O. that the assessee has made investment of Rs. 4.46 crores in equity shares, the dividend income on which is exempt to tax. No disallowance on account of expenses incurred in relation to the said investment, however, was made by the A.O. as required by the provisions of section 14-A of the Act. The A.O., therefore, worked out such expenses to be disallowed u/s 14-A of the Act on account of interest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2001-02 which is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 2-11-2011 whereby he upheld the rectification order passed by the A.O. u/s 154 of the Act. 13. The assessment completed by the A.O. u/s 143(3) of the Act vide an order dated 27-2-2004 for A.Y. 2001-02 was the subject matter of the appeal before the Tribunal and while disposing of the said appeal, the Tribunal vide its order dated 28-8-87 passed in ITA No. 9507/Mum/2004, restored the following issues to the file of the A.O. for deciding the same afresh as per law after allowing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee:- Assessment order [1 to 6] 14. In pursuance of the order of the Tribunal dated 29-8-2007, an order was passed by the A.O. u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act on 30-12-2008 computing the total income of the assessee at a loss of Rs. 18,13,92,586/- after making a disallowance of Rs. 4,79,925/- u/s 14-A of the Act. The book profit computed originally at Rs. 22,05,86,175/- u/s 115JB of the Act, however, was not disturbed by the A.O. After noticing this mistake committed by him, a rectification order u/s 154 of the Act was passed by the A.O. on 19-8-2010 making addition of Rs. 4,79,925/- to the book profit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld. CIT(A) upholding the order of the A.O. passed u/s 154 of the Act making rectification on the issue of provision for diminution in the value of investment relying on the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mysore Iron & Steel Ltd. (1986) 157 ITR 531. 17. We have considered the rival submissions and also perused the relevant material available on record. It is observed that in the case of Mysore Iron & Steel Ltd. (supra) cited by the ld. DR, the issue was whether, where after an original assessment, an order of rectification has been made and subsequently, there is a reassessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the time limit provided u/s 154 of the Act should be computed from the date of the earlier order of rectification or from the date of the order of reassessment and it was held in this context by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court that once an assessment is reopened, the initial order of assessment stands automatically cancelled and the order of reassessment will have to take its place. The issue involved in the case of Mysore Iron & Steel Ltd. (supra), therefore, was entirely different and the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Karnataka High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
