9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (6) TMI 158 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 14A - Rule 8D of I.T. Rules - Held that assessee failed to discharge the onus placed upon them in establishing that the borrowed funds had indeed been utilized for the purpose of their business purposes nor the assessee proved that the aforesaid investment had been made in the shares out of their own interest free fund - Decided in favor of the revenue by way of remand to CIT(A) Regarding disallowance of excess depreciation on computer peripherals - in the case of Income Tax Officer vs. Samiran Majumdar (2005 -TMI - 60148 - ITAT CALCUTTA-B), held that the printer and scanner are integral part of the computer system and, therefore, entitled to higher rate of depreciation @ 60 per cent - Decided in favor of the assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Restriction of addition under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act. 2. Deletion of addition due to disallowance of excess depreciation on computer peripherals. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Restriction of Addition under Section 14A: The Revenue contested the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act to Rs.72,14,080/- from Rs.9,90,51,302/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO had disallowed an amount of Rs.9,90,51,302/- under Section 14A, relying on the decisions in ITO vs. Daga Capital Pvt. Ltd. and Cheminvest Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer. The disallowance was calculated based on Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, which was not applicable for the assessment year in question as per the CIT(A). The CIT(A) reduced the disallowance to Rs.72,14,080/- by taking the ratio of dividend income to total turnover, deeming it reasonable. The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not furnish details showing that borrowed funds were used exclusively for business purposes and not for investment in shares. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO and CIT(A) did not ascertain the utilization of borrowed funds. Citing various judicial pronouncements, including the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd., the Tribunal concluded that the disallowance under Section 14A should be determined by a reasonable method. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to pass a speaking order and ascertain whether borrowed funds were used for business or investment purposes. 2. Deletion of Addition Due to Disallowance of Excess Depreciation on Computer Peripherals: The AO disallowed excess depreciation of Rs.2,07,104/- on computer peripherals, arguing that depreciation on these items should be allowed at 25% instead of 60%. The CIT(A), following the decision of the Delhi Bench of the ITAT in Container Corporation of India Ltd. vs. ACIT, allowed the assessee's claim for higher depreciation. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, referencing the Delhi High Court's ruling in CIT v. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd., which held that computer accessories and peripherals such as printers, scanners, and servers form an integral part of the computer system and are entitled to depreciation at the higher rate of 60%. The Tribunal also cited similar decisions from other benches, confirming that peripherals integral to the computer system qualify for higher depreciation. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this ground. General and Additional Grounds: Ground no.1, being general in nature, and ground no.4, regarding additional grounds of appeal, were dismissed as no specific submissions were made. Conclusion: The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, with the issue of disallowance under Section 14A remanded for fresh adjudication, while the deletion of addition due to disallowance of excess depreciation on computer peripherals was upheld.
|
