9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1514X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowed the Assessee to raise an additional ground AND remanded the said issue to the AO for a fresh determination - HELD THAT:- Having perused the impugned order, the Court finds that the ITAT accepted the plea of the Assessee that all the relevant facts in this regard were already on record. Only a pure legal ground was being urged on that basis. In the circumstances, the Court declines to frame a question on this issue as well. Addition on account of excess claim of depreciation on the LAN/WAN equipments - Assessee claimed depreciation @ 60% by treating them as computer peripherals whereas the AO granted depreciation @ 15% by treating them as plant and machinery - HELD THAT:- As urged that the said equipments were not essential for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om the 'available for sale' category to the 'held to maturity' category during the AY in question. This resulted in mark to market devaluation of ₹ 205.43 crores which was debited to the P L account. regarding maintaining a minimum amount of stock as reserve. The AO disallowed this by terming it as a notional and not a real loss. The ITAT disagreed and reversed the AO in light of the legal position explained in the decision of the High Court of Karnataka in Karnataka Bank Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [2013] 356 ITR 549 (Kar.) and the decisions High Court of Bombay in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Bank of Baroda [2003] 262 ITR 334 (Bom) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. HDFC Bank Ltd. [2014] 368 ITR 377 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ea of the Assessee that all the relevant facts in this regard were already on record. Only a pure legal ground was being urged on that basis. In the circumstances, the Court declines to frame a question on this issue as well. 8. The last issue urged is that the ITAT erred in deleting the addition on account of excess claim of depreciation on the LAN/WAN equipments. The Assessee claimed depreciation @ 60% by treating them as computer peripherals whereas the AO granted depreciation @ 15% by treating them as plant and machinery. 9. Mr. Shivpuri, urged that the said equipments were not essential for the working of computers in the Assessee's organization and, therefore, could not be treated as computer peripherals. The Court is unable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
