TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 441X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herefore, he disagreed with the action of the Assessing Officer and has corectly directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance under section 14A of the Act to2% of the exempted income, which came to ₹ 10,39,345/-. - Decided against assessee - ITA No.3373/MUM/2012 (AY. 2006-07) - - - Dated:- 31-3-2017 - SHRI G.S.PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri Niraj Sheth For The Respondent : Shri m.C. Omi Ningshen ORDER PER G.S.PANNU,A.M: The captioned appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to assessment year 2011-12 is directed against an order passed by CIT(A)-20, Mumbai dated 02/02/2012, which in turn, arises out of an order passed by the Assessi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rrect amount of depreciation claimed by the Appellant in the Return of Income while computing the Assessed Income. iii. The ACIT erred in disallowing the depreciation on depository system (now known as Central System) amounting to ₹ 3,29,00,950/- twice, while computing the Assessed Income. The Appellant therefore pray that the ACIT be directed to delete the double disallowance on account of depreciation on depository system. IV. The ACIT erred in allowing depreciation on Voltage Regulator @ 60% instead of 80%. The Appellant therefore prays that the ACIT be directed to compute depreciation as per the correct rate of depreciation provided in Appendix I of the Rules applicable for AY 2006-07. 3. In brief, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment year 2004-05 vide order in ITA No.2728/Mum/2013 dated 20/02/2017, the Tribunal has allowed the depreciation on computer software @ 60% and, therefore, in this year too similar decision be taken. Though the Ld. Departmental Representative has not disputed the factual matrix, but reiterated the stand of the Assessing Officer, which we have noted in the earlier para and the same is not being repeated for the sake of brevity. 6. In the light of the precedent in the assessee s own case, we deem it fit and proper to direct the Assessing Officer to allow the depreciation on computer software @ 60%. Accordingly, on this issue assessee succeeds. 7. In so far as Ground of appeal No.2 is concerned, the same relates to disallowance made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act to2% of the exempted income, which came to ₹ 10,39,345/-. Not being satisfied with the decision of the CIT(A), assessee is in further appeal before us. 8. The only plea of the assessee before us is to the effect that the disallowance computed @2% of the exempt income was excessive. 9. On the other hand, Ld. Departmental Representative pointed out that in the earlier years, the disallowance has been worked out @ 2% as noted by the Assessing Officer. 10. Having considered the rival submission, in our view, the estimation of amount disallowable under section 14A of the Act, as made by the CIT(A) is quite reasonable and, therefore, no interference is called for, hence on this ground assessee fails. 11. In so far as Groun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
