9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 1429X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') r/w rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (for short 'the Rules'). In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer (AO) noted that on perusal of the details furnished during the course of the proceedings revealed that the assessee-company has earned dividend income amounting to Rs. 25.29 crores. Further, the company has made investments in equity shares considering investments in overseas subsidiaries income from which are not exempted, the outstanding investments as on 31.03.2014 are Rs. 1,30,61,80,000/- and as on 31.03.2015 are Rs.237,50,00,000/-. Further, the company has debited M/s. Carborundum Universal Ltd. AY 2015-16 order u/s. 143(3) of the Act expenses such as rent, salaries, commu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments. No part of the management's time or efforts is in anyway devoted to the earning of this exempted income. An amount of Rs. 1,16,475 has been disallowed in the Return of Income towards the expenses incurred towards earning the exempted Dividend income....'. 4. The AO after considering the explanation of the assessee he has disallowed an amount of Rs. 33,51,767/- u/s. 14A of the Act r/w. rule 8D(2) of the Rules. On appeal the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the same. 5. On appeal before us the ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that s. 14A of the Act and amended Rule 8D(2) of the Rules has came into force from June, 2016 and this case is for assessment year 2015-16 and submitted that rule 8D(2) of the Rules has no application and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. Chennai-1 in Tax Case Appeal Nos.93 to 100 of 2019 dated 28.01.2019 . He also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. BSES Yamuna Powers Ltd. [2013] 358 ITR 0047 (Del). 11. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative relied on the order of the authorities below. 12. We have heard both the sides through video conferencing, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. 13. The only issue that needs to consider is whether depreciation claim made by the assessee in respect of Printers, UPS, Scan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue to the extent indicated above." 14. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has also considered the same issue in the case of BSES Yamuna Powers Ltd. (supra) and held that the computer accessories and peripherals cannot be used without computer as they are part of the computer system they are entitled to depreciation at a higher rate of 60%. We, therefore respectfully following the decisions of Hon'ble Madras High Court and Hon'ble Delhi High Court, held that the assessee is entitled for depreciation @ 60%. Accordingly, this ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed. 15. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced on 31st Marc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
