TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 327X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 87 - ITAT MUMBAI) held that V-SAT network for the purposes of enabling screen based trading by the members is entitled to full depreciation. Higher rate of depreciation of 60% is allowable to the assessee. - ITA NO.5871/MUM/2012, ITA NO.5738/MUM/2013 - - - Dated:- 23-3-2016 - Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member and Shri Rajendra, Accountant Member For The Revenue : Shri M. Murli-DR For The Assessee : Shri K. Shivaram ORDER Per Joginder Singh (Judicial Member) Both these appeals are by the assessee for assessment year 2009-10 and 2010-11, aggrieved by the impugned orders dated 16/07/2012 31/07/2013 of the ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai. First, we shall take up the appeal for A.Y. 2010-11, wherein, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1.The ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in confirming disallowance of ₹ 14,58,112/- u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D without appreciating that no expenditure directly or indirectly was incurred during this year for earning exempt income and investments in shares were made in earlier years out of own fund and not out of borrowed found and hence disallowance u/s.14A r.w. Rule 8D may be deleted. 2. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that dividend income is directly credited to Bank Account and appellant does not have to incur any expenditure for earning exempt income and hence disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D may be deleted. 3. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that interest expenditure of ₹ 2,35,49,746/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, Shri Akhilendra Yadav strongly defended the conclusion arrived at by the ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) by contending that a well reasoned order has been passed by the ld. First Appellate Authority as apportionment of expenditure for earning the dividend income was done as per the provisions of the Act. It was pleaded that section 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Rules is clearly applicable to the facts of the present appeal. 2.2. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee is a limited company, engaged in trading of bulk and fine, chemicals, solvent and pharmaceutical raw materials declared its income at ₹ 74,40,000/- on 26/09/2009. The as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s fact, we find merit in the claim of the assessee. The appeal of the assessee is therefore, allowed. Finally, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 2.2. It is noted that the assessee claimed that nil expenditure was incurred by the assessee in relation to earning of dividend income and ₹ 9,95,435/- was incurred by way of interest, which is not directly attributable to any source of income (Rs.97,21,446/-). The ld. Assessing Officer while framing the assessment invoked section 14A r.w.r.8D by contending that the assessee claimed various expenses, which relates to exempt income. Considering the totality of facts, argument of the assessee, the conclusion drawn in the aforesaid order of the Tribunal and peculiar facts of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he crux of argument on behalf of the Revenue is identical to the ground raised by contending that the accessories are part of power supply system and not of computer system, therefore, not entitled to higher rate of depreciation. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the assessee, defended the conclusion arrived at in the impugned order. 3.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Without going into much deliberation, we are reproducing hereunder the relevant portion from the conclusion drawn by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for ready reference:- I have considered the facts of the case and submissions of the assessee. The Assessing Officer has held that the UPS is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the observation made in the assessment order, leading to addition made to the total income, conclusion drawn in the impugned order, material available on record, assertions made by the ld. respective counsel, if kept in juxtaposition and analyzed, we find that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the ratio laid down in DCIT vs Datacraft India Ltd. (2010) 40 SOT 295 (Mum)(SB), DCIT vs BTA Cellcom Ltd. (ITA No.3658/Del./2011), M/s Weizmann Ltd. vs DCIT (ITA No.768, 742, 770/Mum/2012) order dated 31/10/2013, Expeditors International (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs Addl. CIT (2008) 118 TTJ 652 (Del.). In these cases, it has already been held that peripherals such as printers, scanners, NT server etc, are integral part of computer, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
