TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 854X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s justified in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on a/c of excess depreciation on computer peripherals? 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, is justified in restricting the disallowance u/s 14A to ₹ 10,12,000/- as against ₹ 35,27,000/- as worked out in terms of Rule 8D of the IT Rules, 1962 by the Assessing Officer? 2. The assessee on the other hand has questioned first appellate order on the following grounds:- 1. That the CIT(A) erred in upholding disallowance of ₹ 8.27 lacs on account of interest of ₹ 3.35 lacs on account of administrative expenses u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act read with Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules as against disallo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ised is fully covered by the decisions of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. B.S.E.S Yamuna Power Ltd,211 TIOL 636 CIT Vs. Orient Ceramic Industries Ltd. 2011 TIOL He pointed out further that in the assessment year 2008-09 in the case of assessee itself on an identical issue under the similar facts and circumstances. The Ld. CIT(A) had allowed the claimed depreciation @ 60% on computer peripherals. 5. Considering the above submissions, we find that the issue raised, is fully covered by the decisions of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the above cited cases of CIT Vs. B.S.E.S Yamuna Power Ltd (Supra), and CIT Vs. Oriental Ceramic Industries Ltd (Supra). It is also covered by the first appellat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of ₹ 31.92 lakhs and of ₹ 3.3.5 lakhs on account of administrative expenses. Being convinced with the submissions of the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) has held that no disallowance on account of interest can be attributed to investments of ₹ 503.74 lakhs in the share of SRF Ltd as investment was made out of its own funds and no borrowed funds had been utilized. As regards investment of ₹ 166.50 lakhs made in the shares of Pure Arth Infrastructure Ltd, the Ld. CIT(A) did not agree with the submission of the assessee that no investment had been made out of borrowings and accordingly the Ld. CIT(A) had made disallowance on account of interest at ₹ 8.27 lakhs. The Ld. CIT(A) also did not agree with the submission of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he other hand tried to justify relief given by the Ld. CIT (A) on account of disallowance made by the A.O towards expenditure incurred in earning from the investment made in share of SRF Ltd during the year. He submitted that no new facts were there before the Ld. CIT (A) as similar facts and submission were also made available during the course of assessment proceeding before the A.O. All the investments were made in assessment year 2006-07 and there was no single activity in this year by the assessee in the investment in question. In support he referred Page No-25 of the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee showing that investment of ₹ 503.74 lacks in the shares of SRF Ltd. were made in the assessment year 2006-07. Referring P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2/2011 (A.Y 2008-09). CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom). CIT Vs. Bharti Televenture Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 502 (Del) Munjal Sales Corporation V. CIT Anr. (2008) 298 ITR 298 (SC). J.K. Industries Ltd. V. CIT (2011) 61 DTR (Cal) 153. CIT VS Indian Sugar Exim Corporation Ltd, 2012 TMI 211 145 (Del). Yamuna Pd Peshwa V. DCIT (2012) 65 DTR (jd) (Trib.) 330. DCIT V. Mahrastra Seamless Ltd. (2011) 48 SOT 160 (Delhi). Balarampur Chini Mills Ltd. V. DCIT (2011) 140 TTJ (Kol) (UO) 73. ACIT V. Champion Commeercial Co. Ltd. I.T.A No. 644/Kol/2012 decided on 21/9/2012. 9. Ld. A.R referred Page Nos 46 to 53 of the paper book in support of his submission for both the above investment to substanti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; 746.44 lacs to ₹ 1130.53 lacs between 31/3/2006 and 31/3/2007. On the basis of this observation the Ld. CIT (A) held that investment would have been made out of common/mixed funds and thereafter he worked out be disallowance on a proportionate basis with reference to investment of ₹ 166.50 lacs out of total interest of ₹ 576.40 lacs paid on account of cash credit account. For this he has year taken assistance of a formula. Under these facts we are of the view that the Ld. CIT(A) should have passed a speaking order dealing with contentions of the parties in specific terms with fact and figure. There is no dispute that the provisions laid down in Rule 8D of IT Rules 1962 are very much applicable in the A.Y 2009-10 under co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
