9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refully looking to the claim of the assessee it was found that the assessee has claimed deduction at ₹ 1,79,19,730/- whereas the amount of expenditure pertaining to the FY 2011-12 was only ₹ 10,45,671/-. Balance claim was of earlier years. CIT(A) directed the ld AO to restrict the claim of deduction of ₹ 10,45,671/- only against the claim of the assessee at ₹ 1,79,19,730/-. Further, surprisingly he also directed the ld AO to consider the claim of other earlier years when such claim is made by the appellant. We find that above further direction are not warranted pertaining to earlier years for the reason that ld CIT (A) does not have any power to direct ld AO for allowability of such claim for earlier years. If ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... broker of NSE and BSE. It filed its return of income on 29.09.2012 at ₹ 29227870/-. The assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed on 25.03.2015 determining total income of the assessee at ₹ 3,60,98,880/- wherein, the ld AO disallowed the excess depreciation claim on software of ₹ 6871008/-. 4. During the course of assessment proceedings, another issue arose. The assessee submitted a letter dated 16.02.2015 for claiming additional claim of deduction on account of employee compensation expenses of ₹ 1.79 crores which was not claimed in the return of income. The assessee claimed that the same should be allowed to the assessee. The ld AO disallowed the same holding that a. these are the not revenue expenses, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nses the ld CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee following the order in case of Biocon Ltd 2013] 35 taxmann.com 335 (Bangalore - Trib.) (SB)/[2013] 25 ITR(T) 602 (Bangalore - Trib.) (SB)/[2014] 144 ITD 21 (Bangalore - Trib.) (SB)/[2013] 155 TTJ 649 (Bangalore - Trib.) (SB). He also referred to several other judicial precedents including the judicial precedent in case of sister concern, which was decided by ld CIT (A). Based on this he directed the ld CIT (A) to consider the claim of the assessee on merit as per para 4.3.5.11. He further held that claim of the assessee is also not in tune with ratio of the decision of the special bench in case of Biocon Ltd wherein the claim is allowable on straight-line basis but the assessee has claime ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as ground No. 1 is concerned, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld CIT (A) in upholding that depreciation on software is allowable @60%. However, for working out actual block of asset on which depreciation is to be allowed, he directed the ld AO to verify the same. We find no infirmity in the decision the ld CIT (A), therefore, ground No. 1 of the appeal is dismissed. 10. Coming to ground No. 2 where the assessee raised an additional claim before the ld AO by way of letter and did not made a claim by filing revised return, was rejected by the ld AO on the merits as well as on the ground that no revised return is filed by the assessee claiming the above deduction. The ld AO followed the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court 28 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowed the claim of the assessee and directed the ld AO to compute the deduction of ESOP expenses by following the decision of the special bench of ITAT in case of Biocon Ltd 35 Taxmann.com 335. However, carefully looking to the claim of the assessee it was found that the assessee has claimed deduction at ₹ 1,79,19,730/- whereas the amount of expenditure pertaining to the FY 2011-12 was only ₹ 10,45,671/-. Balance claim was of earlier years. The ld CIT(A) directed the ld AO to restrict the claim of deduction of ₹ 10,45,671/- only against the claim of the assessee at ₹ 1,79,19,730/-. Further, surprisingly he also directed the ld AO to consider the claim of other earlier years when such claim is made by the appellant. W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
