9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 11X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urisdictional High Court in the aforesaid referred to case by holding that the assessee is entitled to higher rate of depreciation @ 60% and the Ld. CIT has followed the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, therefore, we do not see any merit in the appeal of the department on this issue.- Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA NO. 5897 /DEL/2013 - - - Dated:- 29-5-2015 - Shri N.K.Saini and Smt Diva Singh, JJ. For the Petitioner : Sh. P.Dam Kanunjna, Sr. Dr For the Respondent : Sh. Sanjay Joshi, CA ORDER Per N.K.Saini, A. M. : This appeal by the department is directed against the order dated 22/08/2013 of CIT(A)- IX, New Delhi. 2. First issue in this appeal vide ground no. 1 relates to the deletion of disallowance of ₹ 2,16,000/- made by the AO u/s 40(a) (ia) of the Act . The facts related to this issue in brief are that the AO during the course of assessment proceedings noticed that the assessee had claimed Generator hire charges of ₹ 1,80,000/- and vehicle hire charges of ₹ 90,000/- in the P L Account but had not deducted TDS on the said payments as per the provisions of Section 194 (I) of the Income Tax Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions of Section 40(a) (ia) of the Act. I agree with the decision of my Ld. predecessor and hence the addition of ₹ 2,16,000/- is deleted. This ground of appeal is allowed. 5. Now, the department is in appeal, the Ld. DR supported the order of the AO and reiterated the observations made in the assessment order dated 14.12.2012. In his rival submissions, Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and further submitted that the issue under consideration is squarely covered in favour of the assessee vide order dated 9th January, 2015 of the ITAT, Delhi Bench B, New Delhi in ITA No. 751/Del./2013for the assessment year 2009-10 in the case of ADIT, International Taxation vs. Express Drilling Systems LLC. 6. We have considered the submissions both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the Ld. CIT(A) deleted this addition by following the judgment of the Hon ble Kolkata High Court in the case of M/s. S.K.Tekriwal in ITA No. 183 of 2012 and also on this basis that his predecessors has deleted the addition in the preceding year vide order date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an assessee in default u/s 201 of the Act and no disallowance can be made by invoking the provisions of section 40(a) (ia) of the Act. Accordingly, we confirm the order of CIT(A) allowing the claim of assessee and this issue of revenue s appeal is dismissed. We find no substantial question of law is involved in this case and therefore, we refuse to admit the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The assessee further relied on the following decisions: DCIT vs. Chandabhoy Jossobhoy (ITA no. 20/Mum/2010 (Mum.) UE Trade Corporation (India) Ltd. v. DCIT 28 Taxmann.com 77 (Del.) and other cases. As this is not a case of non-deduction of tax but a case where tax has been deducted at a lower rate that too under the bona fide belief that deduction was properly made, we accept the contention of the assessee. Respectfully following the judgment of the Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of S.K. Tekrisal (supra) this ground is allowed deleting the disallowance made u/s 40(a) (ia). 9.1. Respectfully following we allow ground no. 2. 6.1. Respectfully following the same we uphold the order of the First appellate Authority and dismis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the computer for its efficient working and cannot be construed to have its individual identity other than that of computers. Thus computer peripherals printers, scanners, NT server, UPS etc. only serving the purpose of computers can only be considered to be part of computers and no other item of assets. b. The Kolkata Bench in Income Tax Officer vs. Samiran Majumdar (2006) 280 ITR 74 in dealing with the definition of computer also relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Karnataka Power Corporation (supra) held that printer and scanner could not be used without the computer so that it held that the two would form an integral part of the computer system. In the like manner an uninterrupted Power Systems are also to be used only with a computer hence they are to be treated as computer for the purpose of allowing higher rate of depreciation @ 60% only. This decision has been followed by the Delhi Bench in Container Corporation of India Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT in ITA no.s 2851 3680/Del/2007. c. The Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Orient Ceramics Industries Ltd. (2011) 56DTR397 held that UPS would form part of computer peripherals and accessories and accordingly will depreci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
