New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (5) TMI 541 - ITAT DELHI

2015 (5) TMI 541 - ITAT DELHI - TMI - Disallowance of depreciation on computer accessories - assessee claimed depreciation @ 60%, which was restricted to 15% by the AO - CIT(A) deleted the disallowance - Held that:- The issue in question is squarely covered by various decisions of different High Court including the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. BSES Rajdhani Powers Ltd. (2010 (8) TMI 58 - DELHI HIGH COURT), allowing depreciation on computer accesso .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

duty was not qua the original bills but on account of raising of supplementary bills. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the order of ld. CIT(A).- Decided in favour of assessee.

Disallowance of sales tax paid - CIT(A) deleted the disallowance - Held that:- The deposit of the sales-tax was on account of non-submission of form C and VAT D1 and, therefore, this could not be held to be penal in nature. We concur with the finding of ld. CIT(A). - Decided in favour of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

aised on for non collection of Form -C, VA T C-4 etc. and the same be read as part of the explanation given in Grounds of Appeal No.4 above prayed to be deleted. Balance amount represents interest on supplementary bills on Excise Duty raised to its customer for unit 11/ Manesar plant. The amount was wrongly included under the head fine & penalty but should be a part of head Excise Duty and Sales Tax loss as contained in Grounds of Appeal NO.2 above - Decided in favour of assessee.

Dis .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e novo adjudication in accordance with law. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. - ITA no. 778/Del/2011 &487/Del/2012, ITA no. 2446/Del/2012 - Dated:- 22-4-2015 - Shri S.V. Mehrotra AND Shri C.M. Garg JJ. For the Appellant : Shri T. Vasanthan Sr. DR For the Respondent : Shri Anil Kumar Malhotra Adv., Shri Ansh Kumar Sharma CA, Shri Lalit Kumar Sharma Adv. ORDER Per S.V. Mehrotra, A.M:- These are cross appeals, preferred by the revenue as well as the assessee, for AY 2008-09. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

xpenses u/s 14A ₹ 1,05,29,574 Disallowance of depreciation on computer accessories ₹ 44,325 Disallowance of excise duty and sales tax loss ₹ 2,36,797 Disallowance/ addition on account of Sales tax paid ₹ 9,78,958 Fine and penalty ₹ 1,69,915 Adhoc disallowance of various expenses ₹ 5,00,000 2.1. In appeal, ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee s claims. Aggrieved, the revenue as well as the assessee are in cross appeals before us. Revenue s appeal (ITA no. 487 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nd circumstances of the case and in law in deleting the disallowance of ₹ 9,78,958/- made by the AO on account of sales tax paid. 4. Whether Ld. CIT(A) was correct on facts and circumstances of the case and in law in deleting the disallowance of ₹ 1,69,9151- made by the AO on account of Fine and Penalty. 5. Whether Ld. CIT(A) was correct on facts and circumstances of the case and in law in deleting the disallowance of ₹ 5,00,0001- made by the AO out of expenses. 6. The appellan .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

vered by various decisions of different High Court including the decision of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. BSES Rajdhani Powers Ltd. (order dated 31-8-2010 in ITA no. 1266/2010), allowing depreciation on computer accessories and peripherals @ 60%. Accordingly, we see no reason to interfere in the order of the CIT(A) on the issue in question. Ground is dismissed. 6. Apropos ground no. 2 the AO noticed that assessee had debited in its P&L A/c under the head .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

represented the amount paid on account of excise duty on supplementary bills has not been disputed by the department. This was clearly compensatory in nature and could not be treated as penal in nature because the short fall in payment of excise duty was not qua the original bills but on account of raising of supplementary bills. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the order of ld. CIT(A). 7. Apropos ground no. 3 the AO noticed that assessee had debited salestax amounting to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

x on account of non-submission of Form-C and VAT Dl is compensatory in nature and not penal in nature. It is a commercial expediency to sell goods to registered dealer against Form-C. Further it is also seen that out of the total turnover of ₹ 239 crores it is hardly 0.04% of the turnover that the appellant has not been able to procure 'C' Forms and hence paid ₹ 91781958 extra to Sales tax deptt. Therefore, considering the nature and also the commercial expediency the same, I .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of ld. CIT(A). Ground is dismissed. 8. Apropos ground no. 4 the AO observed that assessee had debited in its P&L A/c of ₹ 1,69,915/- under the head fine and penalty . The AO disallowed the assessee s claim observing that demands had been raised on account of violation of law. 8.1. Ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty following his findings with regard to ground no. 2 & 3 above. 8.2. Having heard both the parties we find that before ld. CIT(A), the assessee had inter alia, submitted as u .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ent raised on for non collection of Form -C, VA T C-4 etc. and the same be read as part of the explanation given by us in our Grounds of Appeal No.4 above and is prayed to be deleted. b) Balance of ₹ 1,22,386. This amount represents interest on supplementary bills on Excise Duty raised to its customer for unit 11/ Manesar plant. The amount was wrongly included under the head fine & penalty but should be a part of head Excise Duty and Sales Tax loss as contained in Grounds of Appeal NO. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cted. 9. Apropos ground no. 5 the AO noticed that assessee had incurred certain expenses which were disproportionate as compared to preceding year with regard to sales disclosed. He has given following details: Head 2007-08 (in Rs.) 2008-09 ( in Rs.) Sales 2396355768 2619082196 Job Work 188841479 151070236 Payment to production staff and works 50016594 130400715 Machinery repairing 19762122 26257384 Freight Octroi & Cartage 9861889 37876169 Packing Expenses 200550 1457710 STP Running Expense .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ich had not been justified. 9.2. In appeal, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance observing in para 16 as under: 16. I have gone through the above submissions of the appellant and have considered the evidence and facts on records, since on this issue the CIT(A)-XXVII vide his order dated 11-10-2010 has already given a findings in Assessment year 2007-2008, and as there are no change in facts and circumstances in the year under consideration, hence I find no reason to disagree with the decision .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

xpenditure has been rightly deleted by the ld. CIT(A) We uphold the action of the ld. CIT(A) on the issue in question. Ground is dismissed. Assessee s appeal (ITA no. 2446/Del/2012 - 2008-09): 10. The sole effect ground raised is as under: The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition made by the Ld. Officer u/s 14A amounting to ₹ 54,57,509/-. The order passed by the Ld. Officer is arbitrary, unlawful, unjustified and not founded on facts of the case. 11. The AO n .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

dispute between the AO s working and the assessee was on two counts, namely, interest component and figure of total assets. He pointed out that as far as the interest component was concerned, sum of ₹ 2,38,00,660/- related to bill discounting charges and was towards bank charges and hence was not for earning exempt income. 11.2. As regards the computation of average total assets, he pointed out that the AO had not added the figure of current liabilities in order to arrive at the average to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d in which various issues have been considered having regard to the decisions of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Relexo Footwears Ltd. 293 ITR 231; and Jay Engineering Works Ltd. Vs. CIT 311 ITR 405, he submitted that AO has to take into consideration that the investment made in AY 2008-09 did not yield exempt income. 11.4. We have considered the submission of both the parties. The main thrust of the assessee s submission is with regard to the computation of correct disallowance .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version