9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 960X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls and glass runs. It had filed its return of income declaring loss of ₹ 1,74,58,634/-. The assessment was completed u/s 115JB at ₹ 89,64,847/- after making various additions on account of provisions made by the assessee. The Assessing Officer did not deduct any carried forward unabsorbed depreciation or business loss, whichever was less, observing that no business loss was shown in return as well as computation of income. 3. Further, the AO, while determining the income under the normal provisions of Income Tax Act, allowed 15% depreciation on UPS as against 60% claimed by the assessee and, therefore, made a disallowance of ₹ 20,770/-. 4. Ld. CIT(A), while partly allowing the assessee's appeal, decided both the issues i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was clearly stated that the unabsorbed loss was 130,635,856/- while the unabsorbed depreciation was 308937188/-. As business loss was less than unabsorbed depreciation, this amount had to be reduced while working out the book profit under Explanation1. 8. Ld. CIT(A) referred to the profit and loss account where the brought forward losses had been shown at ₹ 449447045/- and also to the computation of income, where the total carry forward losses had been shown at ₹ 169217965/-. He, therefore, directed the AO to re-compute the book profit after reducing brought forward business loss or depreciation, whichever was less, after verifying the records. 9. Ld. DR relied on the order of AO. 10. Ld. Counsel submitted that sec. 79 whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts under section 115JB after verification of the correct figure of brought forward business loss or depreciation, whichever was less. This ground is, therefore, dismissed in terms of aforementioned observations. 14. Ground no. 2 is in respect of depreciation on computer peripherals viz. UPS. We find that this issue is covered by the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s Bonanza Portfolio Ltd., 2011-TIOL-555-HC-DEL-IT, wherein it has been held as under: "Similarly, with regard to depreciation @ 60% on computer peripherals, we rely upon the judgment of this court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd. (ITA No. 1712/2010 & ITA No. 1714/2010 decided on 9th November, 2010) and held that the computer p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
