9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 1554 - AT - Income TaxDepreciation on UPS and computer peripherals etc. @ 60% - Held that - Since the CIT(A) in the present appeal while granting higher rate of depreciation at the rate of 60% on computer accessories and UPS has followed the decision in the case of BSES Yamuna Powers Ltd. (2010 (8) TMI 58 - DELHI HIGH COURT), therefore, in absence of any contrary material brought to our notice, the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue is upheld and the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. Disallowance u/s 14A - CIT-A deleted addition holding that no expenses could be attributed for earning dividend income in the current year - Held that - it cannot be said that no administrative or supervisory effort has been undertaken - some expenditure must be attributed towards earning of the dividend income. However, the disallowance at the rate of 10% of the dividend income by the Assessing Officer appears to be on the higher side - the disallowance of 5% of the dividend income towards administrative expenses will be justified under the facts of the case. We, therefore, restrict the disallowance to 5% of the dividend income. - Decided partly in favour of revenue Deduction u/s 80JJA - assessee not only failed to make such claim of deduction in the return of income but also failed to substantiate the same with documentary evidence in assessment proceedings - Held that - We find the assessee had not filed the requisite details before the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings which has been clearly brought on record by the Assessing Officer in the body of the assessment order. We find although the ld. CIT(A) has examined certain details filed before him, however, he has neither called the Assessing Officer during the hearing of the appeal nor called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer. Thus, in effect the Assessing Officer was not given any opportunity of being heard before the appeal was decided in favour of the assessee. Under these circumstances, we find merit in the argument of the ld. DR that the matter should be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to examine the details Not allowing the claim of the appellant for the higher depreciation on energy saving devices containing voltage stabilizer & UPS etc - Held that - CIT(A) rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that the main output achieved through the voltage stabilizer and UPS is uninterrupted supply of electricity that requires maintaining optimum voltage for allowing the machinery to function at the optimum level throughout and the objective is not to save energy but to ensure regular supply of electricity. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) treating the UPS and voltage stabilizer as part of the electric installation. We, therefore, uphold the same and the ground raised by the assessee in its Cross Objection is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Depreciation on UPS and computer peripherals. 2. Disallowance under Section 14A related to dividend income. 3. Deduction under Section 80JJAA. 4. Prior period expenses. 5. Loss on foreign exchange fluctuation. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Depreciation on UPS and Computer Peripherals: The Revenue challenged the deletion of disallowance of depreciation on UPS and computer peripherals, arguing that they should be depreciated at 15% instead of 60%. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, referencing the Delhi High Court's ruling in CIT vs. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd., which allowed a 60% depreciation rate on these items. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, noting consistency with prior decisions in similar cases. 2. Disallowance under Section 14A Related to Dividend Income: The Revenue contested the deletion of a ?7,61,523 disallowance under Section 14A, arguing that administrative expenses must be attributed to earning dividend income. The CIT(A) had deleted the disallowance, stating that the investments were made from the assessee's own funds and required no administrative effort. The Tribunal partially agreed with the Revenue, acknowledging that some administrative effort was necessary. It reduced the disallowance from 10% to 5% of the dividend income, balancing the need for some expense attribution without excessive estimation. 3. Deduction under Section 80JJAA: The Revenue objected to the CIT(A)'s allowance of a ?1,07,33,164 deduction under Section 80JJAA, arguing that the claim was not made in the original return and lacked supporting evidence. The CIT(A) allowed the claim based on additional evidence provided during the appellate proceedings, including an audit report and detailed employee information. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s acceptance of new claims justified but noted that the Assessing Officer was not given an opportunity to review the new evidence. It remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer for verification and decision based on the new details. 4. Prior Period Expenses: The Revenue disputed the allowance of ?25,40,305 out of ?51,21,024 claimed as prior period expenses. The CIT(A) allowed part of these expenses after examining the details and finding them justifiable. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer was not given a chance to review the new evidence and remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer for verification and decision based on the new details. 5. Loss on Foreign Exchange Fluctuation: The Revenue challenged the allowance of a ?37,09,017 loss on foreign exchange fluctuation, arguing that the claim was not made in the original return and lacked supporting evidence. The CIT(A) allowed the claim based on additional evidence provided during the appellate proceedings. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s acceptance of new claims justified but noted that the Assessing Officer was not given an opportunity to review the new evidence. It remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer for verification and decision based on the new details. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions on depreciation and partial disallowance under Section 14A but remanded the issues of Section 80JJAA deduction, prior period expenses, and foreign exchange loss back to the Assessing Officer for further verification. The Cross Objections filed by the assessee regarding higher depreciation on energy-saving devices were dismissed. The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes, ensuring a thorough review and adherence to legal standards.
|
