9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1840X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see for assessment year 2009-10. During the course of appellate proceedings, the Revenue has failed to controvert the aforesaid contention and the findings of the ld. CIT(A),therefore after considering the material fact that interest earned on loan and advances from deposit placed with Mega Power Project towards its sharing of power and interest of UL pool account received from M/s. Power Grid Corporation India Ltd were directly related to the business of the assessee ,therefore, this ground of appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed. Disallowance of provision made of employees cost - enhancement of the Book Profit computed under section 115JB on account of disallowance of Expenses - The assessee company has claimed an estimated liability of 3339.00 lacs being employee cost and accounted the same on accrual basis. The assessing officer has disallowed the impugned claim on the ground that additional liability was yet to be ascertained. With the assistance of ld. representatives, we have gone through the material on record and it is noticed that the assessee company has made this provisions for arrears payable to the employee for the purpose of wage revision to be made according to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax Act, 1961; in short "the Act". All the grounds of appeals filed by the revenue and filed by the assessee involved a number of common issues therefore for the sake of convenience all these appeals are being adjudicated together by this common order. At the outset we start with the appeal of the revenue filed vide ITA No. 3358/Ahd/15 for the assessment year 2008-09 as under:- 2. The fact in brief is that assessment u/s. 143(3) of the act was completed on 30th December, 2010 determining the total income at Rs. Nil after setting off of brought forward loss/depreciation of ₹ 137,08,55,763/-. The book profit u/s. 115JB of the act was determined at 155,29,39,190/-. Subsequently, the case was re-opened u/s. 147 of the by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the act on 27th march, 2012. Further facts of the case are discussed while adjudicating different grounds of appeals as under:- ITA No. 3358/Ahd/2015 filed by revenue, Assessment Year 2008-09 3. The revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:- "1. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in by allowing transmission charges expenses of ₹ 6292615912/- without appre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid and section 40(a)(ia) is not applicable to amounts already paid before the end of the financial year under consideration. The learned Assessing Officer also failed to appreciate that the Hon'ble ITAT, Ahmedabad in the appellant's own case for earlier years has held that the transmission charges are not liable to TDS under the IT Act, 1961." 7.1. The AO in her order has stated as follows: "(5.0) Non Deduction of TDS: During the course of assessment proceedings, it was found that the assessee company paid ₹ 629,26,15,912 to Gujarat Energy Transmission Company Ltd(GETCO) being Transmission Charges. As per the provision of section 40(a)(ia) of IT Act the"" whole expenditure on which TDS was not made are required to be disallowed. The assessee company vide letter dated 07.01,2013 issued show cause notice as to why the same expense should not be disallowed. The assessee company submitted its written reply which is reproduced as follows: "It is submitted that the issue relating to the disallowance of transmission charges paid to GETCO without deduction of TDS was specifically raised and examined while completing the assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a legal fiction needs to be construed strictly in view of Supreme Court decision in case of CIT vs. Mother India Refrigeration Industries Pvt. Ltd. 155 ITR 71. The CBDT in Circular No. 5/2005 dated 15-07-2005 has also clarified that the provision of section 40(a)(ia) is to augment compliance of TDS provisions in case of residents and curb bogus payment to them. In our case the payments are not in dispute and we have actually made payment of the expenditure. Reliance is also placed on the decision of ITAT Jaipur in case of Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs. ITO (TDS) wherein the said views have affirmed by the Tribunal. Hence the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act are not applicable and no disallowances are warranted. 1.2. It is also submitted that that in the appellant's own case for the Asst. Year 2007-08 to 2009-10, the Hon'ble ITAT, Ahmedabad vide its order dated 14- 12-2012 has categorically held that the no TD5 is liable to be deducted on the Transmission Charges payable by the Company. It may be noted that the said order has been passed even in response to the Departmental Appeals for the said years. A copy of the said order -is enclosed herewith for imme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .1. In the case of Jaipur Vidyut Vitran (supra) the Jaipur Tribunal has concluded as under: "Assessee, an electricity distribution company, was not liable to deduct tax at source under S.194J from the payment of transmission/SLDC charges to the transmission company RVPN as the operation and maintenance of transmission lines by RVPN and the user of these lines by the assessee for transmitting energy does not result in any technical services being rendered to the assessee, apart from the fact that the payment of transmission/wheeling/SLDC charges is reimbursement of the cost and, therefore, the payments could not be disallowed under s.40(a) (ia); provisions of s.40(a)(ia) are not applicable also for the reason that they apply only when the amount is payable i.e., due whereas the assessee has made actual payment." 8.2 In the case of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution (supra) the Mumbai Tribunal has relying on the decision in the case of Jaipur Vidyut has held that wheeling and transmission charges paid by assessee state electricity distribution company in case of which provisions of Electricity Act 2003 is applicable are not liable for deduction of tax either u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal of the Revenue, therefore, this ground of appeal is dismissed. Ground No. 2 (Treating interest income of ₹ 13352.48 lacs as business income instead of income from other sources) & Ground No. 3 of ITA 3359/Ahd/2015 7. As the facts in both the grounds of appeals are similar, so, we take 2nd ground of ITA No. 3358/Ahd/2015 as lead case and its findings will also be applicable to ground no. 3 of ITA no. 3359/Ahd/2015. 8. During the course of assessment, the assessing officer noticed that as per schedule 14, the assessee has shown other income consisting of interest on loan and advances, incentives from CPSU, cash discount, gain on sale of fixed assets, gain on foreign exchange fluctuation and miscellaneous income etc. amounting to ₹ 13352.48 lacs. The assessing officer was of the view that these income was to be assessed as income from other sources instead of business income shown by the assessee. On query, the assessee explained that interest earned on loan and advances was from deposit placed with Mega Power Project towards its sharing of power and interest of UL pool account was received from M/s. Power Grid Corporation India Ltd. It was also explained that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of disallowance of Expenses of ₹ 3,39,00,000/- being provision made for arrears payable to the employees pending the decision of 6th Pay Commission. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and facts and has confirmed the disallowance of prior period expenses of ₹ 2,28,558/- being power purchase on the ground that the same is not an allowable expense. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has further erred in law and facts in confirming the disallowance of depreciation of ₹ 18,77,000/- and Interest and finance charges ₹ 1,72,56,000/- accounted as prior period expenses without appreciating the fact that such expenditure crystallized during the year. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in enhancing the disallowance of prior period expenses on account of Administrative and other Expenses of ₹ 1,30,35,000/- without considering that there was a net income under this head which has already been offered to tax during the year. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the charging of interest under section 234B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l contentions on this issue and perused the material on record. The assessee company has claimed an estimated liability of ₹ 3339.00 lacs being employee cost and accounted the same on accrual basis. The assessing officer has disallowed the impugned claim on the ground that additional liability was yet to be ascertained. With the assistance of ld. representatives, we have gone through the material on record and it is noticed that the assessee company has made this provisions for arrears payable to the employee for the purpose of wage revision to be made according to the 6th Pay commission. The assessee has stated that the employee's union has submitted their charter of demands and negotiations with the union representatives were in progress during the year. The Ld. Counsel has submitted that identical issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by the ITAT Ahmedabad vide ITA No. 704/Ahd/2012 in the case of Gujarat Energy Transmission Corp. Ltd. for A. Y. 2008-08 0n 12/06/2015. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we restore this issue to the file of the assessing officer for adjudicating a fresh after consideration of the above cited decision and verific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accounts are maintained on the mercantile basis it has to be found in respect or any claim, whether such liability was crystallized and quantified during the previous year so as to be required to be adjusted in the books of account of that previous year. If any liability, though relating to the earlier year, depends upon making a demand and its acceptance by the assessee and such liability has been actually claimed and paid in the later previous years it cannot merely on the basis the accounts are maintained on mercantile basis and that it related to a transaction of the previous year. The true profits and gain of a previous year are required to be computed for the purpose of determining tax liability. The basis of taxing income is accrual of income as well as actual receipt. If for want of necessary material crystallizing the expenditure is not in existence in respect of which such income or expenses relate, the mercantile system does not call for adjustment in the basis. It is actually known income or expenses, the right to receive or the liability to pay which has come to be crystallized, which is to be taken into account under the mercantile system of maintaining books of accou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmission has been made in this regard. The appellant had also failed to establish that the administrative^ expenses debited in the profit and loss account had crystallized during the course of the current year. Under such circumstances, the entire administrative expenses in the nature of prior period expenses are required to be disallowed. Hence, the disallowance made in this regard is enhanced by this amount of ₹ 130.35 Lakhs. 6.4.5. Besides, the prior period income has crystallized in the current year itself as the appellant has not made any submission in this regard. Thus, it is an admitted fact. Moreover, the prior period expenses have not been incurred for earning such prior period income and hence, no set off of such expenses against such income as made by the "appellant while filing return of income is allowable. Hence, the disallowance made by the AO is upheld on this account also. Thus, this ground of appeal is dismissed. After considering the contentions of both the sides and material on record we observe that the ld. CIT(A) has framed his own opinion on the basis of limited details and verification but without specific finding in support of disallowance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB(2) of the IT Act as held in the case of Dabur India Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2013), 37 taxmann.com 289 (Mum)" Ground No. 1. (Disallowance of ₹ 167.56 lacs u/s. 14A r.w. rule 8D of the IT Rule ), Ground No. 5 (Deleting addition of ₹ 167.56 lacs u/s. 14A while computing income u/s. 115JB of the act), Ground No. 1 of 3338/Ahd/2015, Ground Nos. 1 & 4 of 3359/Ahd/2015, Ground No. 1 of 3360/Ahd/2015, Ground No. 1 of ITA No. 2014/Ahd/2015 and Ground No. 1 of ITA No. 3339/Ahd/2015, 3438/Ahd/2015 20. In respect of computing income u/s. 115JB of the act, raised in ground no. 5, the disallowance u/s. 14A of the act amounting to ₹ 167.56 lacs was also added to the book profit of the assessee u/s. 115JB of the act by the assesssee. The ld. CIT(A) has deleted the aforesaid disallowance after following the decision of the ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Alembic Ltd. for assessment year 2007-08 vide ITA no. 1928/Ahd/2010. We consider that the disallowance made u/s. 14A is not to be added in computing income u/s. 115JB of the act as held by the Special Bench of the ITAT in the case of ACIT vs. Vineet Investment vide 165 ITD 27 (Delhi) (2017). Therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 167,56,08,000/- u/s. 14A of the act. 23. Aggrieved assesse has filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has directed the assessing officer to compute the disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D after excluding interest amounting of ₹ 124.26 crores and investment in the subsidiary companies amounting to ₹ 128.28 cores. The relevant part of the decision of ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under:- "3.3 The reasons for making disallowance of ₹ 167.56 crores u/s 14A read with Rule 8D as mentioned by the AO in the assessment order as well as above submission of the appellant's AR have been considered. It is mentioned that the similar issue was involved in the case of appellant for AY 2008-09 also. The then CIT(A)-I, Baroda i.e. my predecessor has passed appeal order in the case of appellant for this AY 2008-09 in appeal no. CAB-1/152/10-11 dated 03/02/2012 in appellant's own case and his observation an the above issue as made in such appeal order is reproduced hereunder or reference: "3.2 I have carefully considered facts of the case and appellant's submissions. There is no dispute that appellant had made investments in shares of subsid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom such shares in subsidiaries etc. are not tenable. Appellant's contention that investments in subsidiaries were as per notified balance sheet as on 1.4.2005 by Government of Gujarat, which was accepted by appellant company as it is and the loans etc. were prior to such notification, due to which investments in shares of subsidiaries could not be said to be out of borrowed funds is now taken up. Part of the loans appearing on appellant's balance sheet were in fact raised by erstwhile GEB for acquisition of capital assets for generation, transmission of electricity etc. Under the Financial Restructuring Plan, such loans were assigned to the appellant company against which shares in subsidiary companies i.e. GSECL, GETCO etc. were also allotted. The underlying capital assets acquired out of such loans are appearing on the balance sheet of GSECL, GETCO etc. As far as appellant company is concerned, the interest burden on such loans inherited by it from GEB is in relation to such investments in subsidiary companies etc. Thus, merely because the loans were taken prior to Financial Restructuring Plan does not mean that interest on loans inherited from GEB by the appellant compa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... old and out of interest free funds etc. is therefore not tenable and it is a case falling u/s 14A(2) of the Income tax Act requiring determination of expenditure to be disallowed as per Rule 8D of Income tax Rules. Assessing 2~,cer has apportioned entire interest of ₹ 13122.56 lakhs under Rule 5D(2)(ii); however, the interest to be apportioned under clause (ii) of Rule 5D(2) is "...... interest during the previous which is not directly attributable to any particular income or receipt.....". As per details submitted by appellant, interest of ₹ 167.48 crore was directly attributable to its business of bulk purchase and bulk sale of power, being in relation to working capital borrowings. On other hand, interest of ₹ 33.94 crore on loans raised by GEB and outstanding on 31.3.2008 and certain other items included in total interest were not directly attributable to any particular income. The interest to be apportioned under Rule 8D(2)(ii) would accordingly be as under: Net interest claimed ₹ 131.22 crore Add: Provision of interest on Govt. loans Returned back ₹ 67.80 crore Interest capitalized ₹ 7.16 crore ₹ 206.18 crore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aimed interest expenditure of ₹ 14527.94. The assessing officer has applied section 14A r.w.s. Rule 8D of the I.T. Rule land disallowed an amount of ₹ 167,56,08,000/-. The ld. CIT(A) has restricted the disallowance to the amount of ₹ 61.4575 crore subject to verification by the assessing officer that interest of ₹ 167.48 crore was in relation to working capital loans or other loans utilized exclusively for power trading business of the assessee company. The ld. CIT(A) also held that the assessee company has established that investment in shares amounting to ₹ 1280.28 crores in the subsidiary companies were made out of the grants received from the State Government of Gujarat, therefore, the same cannot be considered for making disallowance out of interest fund , however, the same has to be considered for making disallowance out of administrative expenses. It was brought to our notice by the ld. counsel that in the case of the assessee itself on the identical issue and similar facts for assessment year 2008-09 the ITAT Ahmedabad vide ITA No. 837/Ahd/2012 has set aside the matter to the file of assessing officer . The Ld. DR could not controvert the above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TA No. 3359/Ahd/2015 and Ground No. 3 of ITA No. 3360/Ahd/2015. 26. During assessment proceedings, on verification of balance sheet and profit and loss account, the assessing officer noticed that opening and closing balance of capital grant in the reserves and surplus was shown at ₹ 2500 lacs. The assessing officer was of the view that if grant was in the nature of capital nature then it should have been deducted from fixed capital asset in case the grant was in the revenue nature then the same should have been shown as revenue income in the hands of the assessee. The assessing officer asked the assessee to explain the nature of grant and why the same should not be reduced from the capital asset as per explantion-10 to section 42(1) of the act. The assessee explained no new grant was received during the year under consideration. It was further explained that various grants received/receivable during the year from the Govt. of Gujarat were apportioned amongst the subsidiary companies on appropriate basis. The assessing officer has not accepted the explanation of the assessee. The assessing officer noticed that assessee has shown subsidy receivable from the Govt. of Gujarat a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) has deleted the aforesaid addition holding that the assessee has not acquired any fixed assets on which depreciation has been claimed, therefore ,such grants cannot be reduced from cost of fixed asset of the assessee company. With the assistance of ld. authorized representatives, we have gone through the material on record pertaining to the submission of the assessee stating that the assessee has not received any grant during the year and the grants received originally from the Govt. of Gujarat were apportioned against the subsidiary companies on appropriate basis. In F.Y. 2007-08, the State Government vide various GRS decided to convert the grant given during the F.Y. 2005-06 to 2007-08 for implementation of Jyoti Gram Yojna (JGY) into equity share capital. Accordingly, the total grants received during the aforesaid financial years were allocated among the four distribution companies for implementation of the aforesaid scheme of the State Government. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we do not find any infirmity with the decision of the Ld. therefore, the aforesaid grants received cannot be treated as income of the assessee company. Acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal no. CAB/I/152/10-11 In appellant's own case for AY 2008-09 and the same is reproduced hereunder for reference: I "I have considered facts of the case and appellant's submissions. Guarantee fees was an annual recurring expenditure incurred by the appellant. Guarantee fees was payable to Government of Gujarat every year in respect of loans taken by appellant and guaranteed by Government of Gujarat. As held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of India Cements Ltd. 60 ITR 52 (SC), loan cannot be treated as asset or advantage resulting in enduring benefit. Guarantee fees paid to Government of Gujarat was in connection with raising of loans and enduring benefit or advantage could not be said to have resulted by taking such loans. Only if the assets acquired out of such loans were not put to use till the end of previous year, i.e. 31.3.2008, guarantee fees to such extent, i.e. in respect of such loans only needs to be capitalized as cost of such asset. Appellant has certified that guarantee fees was paid in respect of loans for acquisition of capital assets which were put to use prior to 1.4.2007. Guarantee fees of ₹ 4,76,00,000/- is directed to be allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting to whether an item of expenditure lies in the capital or the revenue field has exercised the courts in numerous cases. From an analysis of such cases a few guiding principles/tests can be identified. One of the important tests for categorizing any expenditure as capital in nature is whether the laying out of the impugned expenditure results in the acquisition of creation of any new asset. Where no such asset is created, it would be indicative of an expenditure which was not capital in nature. Another test relates to the principle of "enduring benefit". "Enduring benefit" may be in the form of long lasting use of an asset or the acquisition of a right to exploit certain commercial processes, etc. In the instant case, the assessee did not acquire any right to exploit a commercial technology or process, and neither was the benefit "enduring", since the payment of guarantee commission was an annual charge. The benefit derived from payment of such commission thus lasted for exactly one year only. Such ITA No.704 and 761/Ahd/2012shortlived benefit cannot be categorized as "enduring". Hence, I am inclined to the view that the payment of guarant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Shri Rama Multi Tech vs. ACIT reported at 92 TTJ 568. 6.2. The ld.CIT-DR could not distinguish the facts of the case, therefore we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the ld.CIT(A), same is hereby upheld. Thus, these two grounds raised in the Revenue's appeal are rejected." 36. DR could not point out any good reason as to why the above quoted order of the Tribunal should not be followed for the year under consideration. In the absence of distinguishing features being pointed out by the DR, and the facts being identical, respectfully following the above quoted decision of the Tribunal, we confirm the order of the CIT(A), and dismiss this ground of appeal of the Revenue. 40. We are of the view that the issue raised in this ground is squarely covered by the decision of co-ordinate bench referred above in the case of Gujarat Energy Transmission Corpn. (supra) and respectfully following the same, we find no reason to interfere with the order of ld. CIT(A) and uphold the same. This ground of Revenue is dismissed." Respectfully following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT as cited above, we do not find any merit in the appeal of Reven ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (A) has further enhanced the prior period expenses by ₹ 59,37,8,016/- mainly pertaining to the power purchased expenses. In view of the above the ld. CIT(A) has enhanced the prior period expenses by the amount of ₹ 6,49,12519/- . It is noticed during the course of enhancement of prior period expenses, the ld. CIT(A) has called for specific findings of the assessing officer with regard to claim of prior period expenses of the assessee. The assessing officer has furnished a brief report vide letter No. BRD /Cir. 1(1)GUVNL/2013-14 dated 17-02-2014 which is reproduced as under:- "With reference to the above as per, the direction given by Ld. CIT(A), the undersigned has given opportunity to the assessee company vide her letter dated 07/10/2013 to produce details for the verification of the prior period income and expenses. In response, the assessee company submitted a letter dated 18/10/2013 which has been duly considered in the preparation of the remand report. After perusal of the reply of the assessee and, facts of the case, following remand report is submitted for your kind perusal: 1) During the year under consideration, the assessee company has shown a prior ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e allowed and both the prior period income and prior period expenditure needs to be treated separately and independently. During the assessment proceedings for the year under consideration the same was done due to the oversight of the undersigned. Since, it is apparent from the records, therefore separate treatment is meted out to the prior period income am/expenses. 5) It is further observed from the 'analysis of the vouchers & documentary evidences produced by the assessee that it cannot be concluded from such evidence that the liability got crystallized during AY 2010-11. A symbolic expenses wise analysis of the same is as follows: i) Power Purchase ₹ 593.78 Lacs As per the assessee's submission dated 18/10/2013 the said amount was paid to GETCO on account of transmission charges payable for the financial year 2007-08. The said liability, as per the assessee, crystallized during the year in terms of the order passed by GERC. Hoy ever, an analysis of the order shows that it was passed on 26/03/2008. Therefore it is seen that, if at all, the liability had crystallized earlier and not during the concerned assessment year. ii) Other Adjustments ₹ 16.9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rms and conditions which were not fulfilled by the TCS. It is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has not specified the details and material which was not produced by the assessee and details of reminder/show cause for making such disallowance etc. has not been elaborated in his findings. Similarly for other disallowance under the head prior period, the ld. CIT(A) has made disallowances as per his opinions and stated that assessee has failed to furnish the relevant material. In respect of transmission charges the ld. CIT(A) was of the opinion that it was not the liability of the assessee and the same cannot be claimed by the assesse as prior period expenses. In the light of the facts and circumstances briefly stated above the following facts are emerged :- (i) The assessing officer has stated that the prior period expenses were remained to be disallowed due to oversight. (ii) The ld. CIT(A) has enhanced the prior period expenses disallowed during the course of appellate proceedings. (iii) The assessing officer has failed to give any findings as required in the remand report by the ld. CIT(A) (iv) Under the aforesaid circumstances, the ld. CIT(A) has framed his own opinion on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that depreciation disallowed needs to be re-worked as various types of expenditure which are fully allowable during the year are included in addition of block of assets, computers and similarly there are various machines which are actually eligible for depreciation @ 60% have been subjected to depreciation @ 15% only. We further observe that ld. CIT(A) has looked into this aspect and has open the way for examining the relates facts towards calculation of correct depreciation in the block of assets relating to computers by way of observing the related facts in his decision. 25. We are, therefore, of the view that in the given circumstances this issue needs to go back to the file of ld. Assessing Officer for re-examination and calculation of depreciation on computers in the light of submissions made by assessee before ld. CIT(A) after giving sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the assessee for providing necessary details so as to arrive at the correct amount of depreciation on computers for which the assessee is eligible. Accordingly this ground is allowed for statistical purposes." In the light of the above facts and findings this issue is also restored to the file of ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
