2015 (1) TMI 1225 - AT - Income Tax

Depreciation on Computer accessories and peripherals @ 60% - Held that - Decided in favour of assessee as decided in CIT vs. BSES Yamuna Powers Ltd., 2010 (8) TMI 58 - DELHI HIGH COURT eligible for depreciation @ 60%. Addition commission paid u/s 36(1)(ii) - CIT(A) has deleted the addition - Held that - CIT(A) has deleted the addition following the order of the ITAT in the case of the assessee company for Assessment Year 2002-03. The ld CIT(A) has held that the facts of the instant year are identical to the Assessment Year 2002-03, inasmuch as the person to whom commission has been paid and the basis of payments remains the same. The ld DR could not point out any fresh fact or distinguishing features so as to make us take a different opinion. Disallowance u/s 14A - Held that - AO has invoked Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (herein after the Rules ) and enhanced the disallowance made by the assessee of ₹ 1,23,940/- to ₹ 6,48,260/- without recording any satisfaction u/s 14A(2) of the Act, which as has been held by the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax ( 2011 (11) TMI 267 - Delhi High Court ).

Summary

Issues:
1. Depreciation on computer peripheral.
2. Addition of commission paid.
3. Disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act.

Depreciation on computer peripheral:
The appeal by the revenue pertained to the order passed by the ld CIT(A)-VI, New Delhi for Assessment Year 2008-09. The first ground of appeal related to the depreciation on computer peripherals. The ld CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee for depreciation at 60% on computer accessories and peripherals, citing a High Court judgment in a similar case. The Tribunal held that the issue was no longer Res-integra and upheld the decision of the ld CIT(A) based on the precedent, resulting in the dismissal of the ground raised by the revenue.

Addition of commission paid:
The second ground of appeal involved an addition of Rs. 13 lakhs as commission paid to an individual under section 36(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ld CIT(A) ruled in favor of the assessee, citing similarity with a previous year's case where the addition was deleted by the ITAT. The Tribunal noted that the revenue failed to provide any new facts or distinguishing features to warrant a different opinion. Referring to a High Court order, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal by the revenue, upholding the decision of the ld CIT(A).

Disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act:
The third ground of appeal concerned the disallowance under section 14A of the Act. The ld CIT(A) found that the Assessing Officer had made a disallowance without recording any reason and without sufficient evidence to support the disallowance. The ld CIT(A) directed the AO to delete the addition made under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Act. The Tribunal concurred with the ld CIT(A)'s findings, highlighting the necessity for the AO to record satisfaction before invoking Rule 8D. Citing relevant High Court judgments, the Tribunal rejected the ground raised by the revenue, ultimately dismissing the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decisions of the ld CIT(A) across all three issues, dismissing the appeal of the revenue. The judgment underscored the importance of legal precedents, proper recording of reasons, and adherence to statutory provisions in tax assessments.