9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (11) TMI 802X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... preciation on computers and peripherals at the rate of 60% is allowable now settled by the judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. BSES Yamuna Powers Ltd. [2010 (8) TMI 58 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - ITA 1712 and 1714/2010 - - - Dated:- 9-11-2010 - A.K. Sikri, Suresh Kait, JJ. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. Standing Counsel for the Appellant C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. with Prakash Kumar, Adv. for the Respondent JUDGMENT A.K. Sikri, J. 1. Following questions of law are proposed in this appeal:- "(i) Whether ITAT was correct in law in allowing loss of 1,56,04,644/- to the assessee on sale of repossessed assets u/s 36(1) (vii) r/w Section 36 (2) of the Act? (ii) Whether assessee had satisfied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Assessing Officer holding that the claim was covered by Section 36 (1) (vii) read with Section 36 (2) of the Act. He was also of the view that it was not a case of trading loss under Section 28 of the Act. According to him, on the facts of this case, judgment of Calcutta High Court in the case of A.W.Figgies and Co. Pvt. Ltd. 254 ITR 63 was directly applicable. The ITAT has affirmed the aforesaid view. (2) The assessee had also claimed depreciation at the rate of 60% of computers accessories and peripherals purchased by the assessee during this year. The Assessing Officer, however, allowed the depreciation at the rate of 25%. The CIT (A) reversed this part of the order of the Assessing Officer holding that on computer accessorie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the year, when it became irrecoverable, since the repossessed assets were sold and was not a case of mere revaluation of the assets leased and were taken merely possession thereof. In holding so, he relied upon the following decisions:- 1. CIT vs. Morgan Securities Credit Ltd. 292 ITR 339 (Del). 2. Auto Meter Ltd. 210 CTR 339 3. Poysha Oxygen (P) Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT (2008) 19 SOT 711 (Del) 5. The CIT (A) noted that, the assessee being a non-banking Financial Company (NBFC) is in the business of money lending giving finance for purchase of vehicle under hire purchase Scheme. He further noted that the owner of the vehicle is the purchaser, and appellant is the lender of money, which itself is a distinguishable factor, as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he account of customer is written off as "Loss on Sale of Reprocessed Assets" which is nothing a write off of Bad Debts. Nomenclature does not change the real character of the transaction. The court have invariably held that nomenclature given to the transaction and the treatment given to expenditure in particulars manner or the accounting entries does not change the real character of transaction and are not determinative and decisive for tax purpose. The clam of the assessee should be decided as per provision of law ( See case of Bur Paints India Ltd. 254 ITR 503 (Cl.) and Kedar Nath Jute Manufacturing Co. 82 ITR SC." 7. The CIT (A) thereafter applied the provisions of Section 36 (1) (vii) and 36 (2) of the Act on the aforesaid facts. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
