9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1554X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce of depreciation of Rs. 3,72,466/- holding that UPS and computer peripherals etc. are entitled for depreciation @ 60%." 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of manufacturing and assembling of Tractors. It filed its return of income on 30.10.2007 declaring total income of Rs. 147,83,25,740/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has claimed depreciation of Rs. 5,40,668/- at the rate of 60% on UPS and computer peripherals. He, therefore, confronted the assessee to explain as to why the depreciation should not be restricted to 15%. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee and reclassifying the UPS and computer peripherals as plant and machinery he allowed the depreciation at the rate of 15%. 4. In appeal, the ld. CIT(A) following the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. reported in (2010) TIOL 636 allowed the depreciation at the rate of 60% by holding that the UPS and computer peripherals etc. are entitled for depreciation at the rate of 60%. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nds were utilized for the purpose of such investment. According to him, the dividend is accumulated on daily basis in the account of the assessee and the same is reinvested in further units of the LIC Mutual Funds automatically. Therefore, no efforts either administrative or supervisory need to be undertaken by the assessee for this investment on daily basis. Therefore, the provisions of section 14A are not applicable. He further noted that in the immediately preceding assessment year, the ld. CIT(A) had reduced the disallowance u/s 14A to 5% of the dividend income. However, in the present year, no expenses can be attributable for earning of the dividend income. He accordingly deleted the entire addition. 10. Aggrieved with such order of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 11. After hearing both the sides, we find the Assessing Officer disallowed an amount of Rs. 7,61,523/- by invoking the provisions of section 14A on account of administrative and supervisory expenses incurred by the assessee for earning the exempt dividend income of Rs. 7,61,523/-. We find the ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance on the ground that no efforts either administrative or sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the claim of deduction of expenses of Rs. 51,21,024/- (shown as prior period expenses in A.Y. 2008-09) when the assessee not only failed to make such claim of deduction in the return of income but also failed to substantiate the same with documentary evidence in assessment proceedings. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred in allowing the claim of deduction of Rs. 25,40,305/- out of the claim of deduction of expenses of Rs. 51,21,024/- (shown as prior period expenses in A.Y. 2008-09) on the basis of additional evidence admitted during appellate proceedings without writing the reasons for its admission and without granting an opportunity to the assessing officer." 13. Facts of the case, in brief, are that during the course of assessment proceedings on 14.12.2009, the assessee submitted a statement of revised taxable income before the Assessing Officer wherein it claimed deduction u/s 80JJAA of Rs. 1,07,33,164/- and prior period expenditure of Rs. 51,21,024/-. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the above claim made by the assessee. He referred to the provisions of section 139(5) according to which t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... furnished details of each such new regular workmen alongwith their respective dates of joining service, period of service during the current year, respective bank accounts in which remuneration was paid and had thereby given breakup of the allowable additional wages paid during the year. On examination of the same, I hold that the claim by the appellant u/s 80JJAA was correct, accordingly, the same is being allowed. 6.7.3 Regarding the other claim made before me relating to certain expenses classified on the 'prior period expenses' amounting to Rs. 51,21,024/-, I was informed that these expenses were not claimed in the current year as till finalization of return, their details were not available. These were later claimed in subsequent year but added back in that year being 'prior period expenses' for that year. However, in terms of accounting norms, these pertained to the current year. I observe that out of the same, an amount of Rs. 24,78,391/- was not allowable, as no TDS was deducted thereon and hence the claim for same was already withdrawn by the appellant u/s 40(a)(ia). Regarding the balance amount of Rs. 26,42,633/-, the appellant was asked to furnish the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) and the Paper Book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. It is an admitted fact that the assessee without filing a revised return filed a revised computation of income before the Assessing Officer claiming deduction u/s 80JJA amounting to Rs. 1,07,33,164/- and prior period expenses of Rs. 51,21,024/-. We find the ld. CIT(A) following various decisions held that the assessee is entitled to make a new claim before him although the same was not claimed before the Assessing Officer by filing the revised return. Such act of the ld. CIT(A) admitting new claim, in our opinion, is justified in view of the various decisions relied on by him. 18. Now coming to the merit of the case, we find the assessee had not filed the requisite details before the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings which has been clearly brought on record by the Assessing Officer in the body of the assessment order. We find although the ld. CIT(A) has examined certain details filed before him, however, he has neither called the Assessing Officer during the hearing of the appeal nor called for a remand repo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gy Saving Devices' under Clause E(d) of the Appendix-1 (Rule-5). The contention of the appellant was that the main purpose for this instrument is to maintain regular flow of electricity and hence the same is in the nature of power saving energy device. On careful consideration of the facts of the case and keeping in view the purpose of the voltage stabilizer and UPS in the business of the appellant, in my view, both the voltage stabilizer (automatic) and the UPS ensure continuous supply of electricity and minimization of voltage fluctuation. The main output achieved through this is uninterrupted supply of electricity that requires maintaining optimum voltage for allowing the machinery to function at the optimum level throughout. Thus, the underlying objective is not to save energy but to ensure regular supply of electricity (energy). In view of the same, the claim of the appellant for allowing depreciation on the voltage stabilizer and on the UPS @ 80% is not acceptable. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is decided against the appellant." 23. Aggrieved with such order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed Cross Objection, against the appeal filed by the Revenue, before the T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowing the claim of deduction of Rs. 2,39,65,590/- (i.e. Rs. 1,07,33,164/- + Rs. 1,32,32,429/-) u/s 80JJAA on the basis of additional evidence admitted during appellate proceedings for AYs 2007-08 and 2008-09 without writing the reasons for its admission and without granting an opportunity to the Assessing Officer. 5 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred in allowing the claim of loss on foreign exchange fluctuation amounting to Rs. 37,09,017/- when the assessee not only failed to make such claim of deduction in the return of income but also failed to substantiate the same with documentary evidence in assessment proceedings. 6 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred in allowing the claim of loss on foreign exchange fluctuation amounting to Rs. 37,09,017/- on the basis of additional evidence admitted during appellate proceedings without writing the reasons for its admission and without granting an opportunity to the assessing officer." 28. After hearing both the sides, we find the above grounds are identical to grounds of appeal in ITA No.5756/Del/2013. We have already ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
