9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1875X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ] - Ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed and the assessee is entitled to claim depreciation @60% on UPS. Disallowance u/s.14A - HELD THAT:- There is no doubt in our mind that the dissatisfaction expressed by the ld. Assessing Officer on the suo-motu disallowance made by the assessee was objective. No doubt in the judgment of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd [2017 (5) TMI 403 - SUPREME COURT] had held that ld. AO has to generate requisite satisfaction with regard to the correctness of the claim of the assessee on its admission of expenditure against exempt income before invoking Section 14A of the Act. Here in our opinion ld. AO had done so. The disallowance made was at 0.5% of average value ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntentions and perused the orders of the authorities below. What was held by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Sundaram Asset Management Co Ltd (supra) is reproduced hereunder:- "The fifth ground of appeal of the assessee relates to the issue of depreciation on UPS: The assessee has claimed depreciation on UPS @ 60% treating the same as part of computer. On the other hand, the Assessing Officer has considered the UPS at par with Plant & Machinery and restricted the depreciation to 15%. It has been repeatedly held in various decisions of the Tribunal that depreciation @ 60% has to be provided on UPS treating it to be the part of computer. This issue has been decided by the Tribunal in the case of Haworth (India) Pvt. Ltd.,131 ITD 21 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. Assessing Officer generated requisite satisfaction with regard to the correctness of the claim of the assessee, Section 14A of the Act could not be applied. 8. Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative strongly supported the orders of the lower authorities. 9. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities below. It is not disputed that assessee had investments in shares and mutual funds to the tune of H132,39,84,480/-. It had also earned dividend of H11,48,08,342/- claimed as exempt. Assessee had suo-motu disallowed only H1,44,000/-. Ld. Authorised Representative has placed before us a working sheet giving the calculation and it read as under:- Particulars Base Senior Manager Subordinate Tot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee produced supra, there is no doubt in our mind that the dissatisfaction expressed by the ld. Assessing Officer on the suo-motu disallowance made by the assessee was objective. No doubt in the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd (supra), had held that ld. Assessing Officer has to generate requisite satisfaction with regard to the correctness of the claim of the assessee on its admission of expenditure against exempt income before invoking Section 14A of the Act. Here in our opinion ld. Assessing Officer had done so. The disallowance made was at 0.5% of average value of investment under Rule 8D(2) (iii) and as per the formula under Rule 8D(2) (ii). We do not find any reason to int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
