9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 392X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in deleting the addition of Rs.80,417/- on account of disallowance of claim u/s 35D of I.T. Act. 3 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,17,000/- on account of depreciation on computer peripherals. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any ground of the appeal raised above at the time of hearing." 2. Adverting first to ground no.1 in the appeal, facts, in brief, as per relevant orders are that return declaring income of Rs.17,43,92,638/- filed on 30.10.2007 by the assessee, a professional investment information and credit rating agency, after being processed u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), was selected fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le in the year under consideration in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT,[2011] 15 taxmann.com 390 (Delhi). Moreover in the assessee's own case for the AYs 2001-02 and 2003-04 in I.T.A. no.514/Del./04 and I.T.A. no.2573/Del./06, a co-ordinate bench while following the decision in ACIT Vs. M/s Eicher Ltd. 101 TTJ 369, upheld the disallowance of Rs.1 lac. The said decision was followed in the decision dated 20th October, 2008 in the AY 2004-05 in I.T.A. no.360/Del./08 and in the decision dated 21st April, 2011 in I.T.A. no.4932/Del./2010 in the AY2005-06. In the light of consistent view taken in these decisions in identical circumstances, especially when the Revenue have not placed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he expenditure does not fall within the ambit of section 35D and needs to be allowed as revenue expenditure." The contention of the applicant appears to be reasonable since 1/10th of the expenditure allowed in the previous year, I do not want to interfere and disallowance of Rs.80,417/- to be deleted." 8. The Revenue is now in appeal before us against the aforesaid findings of the ld. CIT(A).The ld. DR supported the order of the AO while the ld. AR on behalf of the assessee relied upon the findings in the impugned order. 9. We have heard both the parties and gone through the facts of the case. Indisputably, the expenditure of Rs.2,55,169/- was incurred in the financial year 1999-2000 and Rs.5,49,000/- in the financial year 2000-01, for i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13. We have heard both the parties and gone through the facts of the case. We find that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. BSES Rajdhani Powers Ltd. in I.T. Appeal no. 1266 (Delhi) of 2010, in their decision dated 31-8-2010 while adjudicating a similar issue, held as under: "We are in agreement with the view of the Tribunal that computer accessories and peripherals such as, printers, scanners and server etc. form an integral part of the computer system. In fact, the computer accessories and peripherals cannot be used without the computer. Consequently, as they are the part of the computer system, they are entitled to depreciation at the higher rate of 60 per cent." 13.1 Following the said decision, ITAT in ITO vs.v.Omni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
