9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s spelled out in the aforesaid Section are not found - Accordingly there is no evidence for sale that there is transfer of property in goods - Hence decided against the assessee and in favor of revenue by reversing order of CIT(A) and ITAT. - 95 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 27-4-2011 - MR.JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO, MR.JUSTICE M. VENUGOPAL, JJ. For Appellant : Mr. T. Ravikumar For Respondent : Mr. R. Venkatanarayanan for M/s Subbaraya Aiyer JUDGMENT ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J. This Appeal is filed by the Revenue in respect of the assessment year 1998 99 against the order dated 20.7.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "C" Bench, Chennai, and was admitted on the following substantial question of law: "Whether o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s:- "1.9. On a careful consideration of the other contentions of the appellant, I agree with its contention that it is in the realm of the business decision of the appellant to take a decision as to whether it has to go for purchase of assets or leasing of assets. Regarding the observation made by the Assessing Officer that the appellant has paid 138% of cost of the asset in a span of 13 months, the appellant's submission that it enjoyed benefits of liquidity in the process cannot be ignored. Assessing Officer has also not highlighted any facts or arguments to show that there is any connection amongst the parties involved in the transaction which would make the transaction suspect or there was padding up of costs. 1.10. On a perusal o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e other hand, it was eligible for depreciation at 25% on the said assets. He further submitted that in all the transactions there was constructive sale / paper transaction only and there was no physical movement of goods from the premises of the assessee company i.e., the assets were even shown as sold though they were in possession of the assessee company only. Therefore, according to the learned Standing Counsel, the aforesaid method adopted by the assessee is nothing but a colourable device to hoodwink the Revenue. 6. From the materials produced, it is seen that the assessee company had purchased computers and accessories worth Rs.59,85,037/- from M/s. Hitech Informatics, M/s. Colt Computers and M/s. Alacrity Electronics and the invo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ility, the assessee had entered into a lease agreement and claimed the lease rental, by which the assessee claims deduction of the entire cost of the assets. 7. More over, it is also to be seen that when the assessee company has the capacity to purchase the assets of its own, why it has chosen to sell the same to another company without any profit i.e., for the purchase money and chose to enter lease agreement. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee though states that he is eligible for deduction of entire cost of the assets as per the provisions of the Act, he is not able to point out or give reason for entering into the lease agreement and why the assessee has chosen to sell the assets for the purchase money. Since no satisfactory e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
