9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (12) TMI 102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er these observations A.O. is directed to pass fresh order. -Decided in favor of Revenue - ITA 1074/2011 - - - Dated:- 19-12-2011 - MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA, MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR, JJ. For Appellant : Mr. N.P.Sahni and Mr. Ruchesh Sinha, Advs. For Respondent : Mr. Tapas Ram Misra and Mr. Ashu Kansal, Advs. SANJIV KHANNA, J: (ORAL) This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 16.12.2010 in the case of M/s. Galileo India Pvt. Ltd. and relates to assessment year 2005-06. By the impugned order the Tribunal has quashed the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. 2. After hearin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eduction under Section 14A should be made and the amount which should be disallowed as expenditure and (ii) whether or not the assessee had rightly claimed depreciation on the computer peripherals and whether the respondent was entitled to depreciation @ 60% or 30%. 7. The Tribunal has quashed the said order, inter alia, holding that Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (2010) 328 ITR 81 has held that Rule 8D was not retrospective. With regard to depreciation, it has been held that same is admissible @ 60%. 8. Rule 8D has been held to be prospective in nature and applicable from assessment year 2008-09 by this Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT, New Delhi in ITA No.6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll be also kept in mind by the Assessing Officer. The only question, the Assessing Officer is required to consider is whether or not the computer peripherals were used for more than 180 days. This is the limited scrutiny and the enquiry which the Assessing Officer will inquire and examine. 10. We have been informed at the Bar by counsel for the respondent that in spite of the order of the Tribunal dated 16.12.2010, the Assessing Officer had passed an order on 24.12.2010. Learned counsel for the respondent further states that the said order has been quashed by the CIT (A) as it was passed after the order dated 16.12.2010. The revenue has however preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. In these circumstances, counsel for the respondent-a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
