CIT vs. CONTROLS & SWITCHGEAR CO LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA - 1137 / 2011HC Delhi10 October 20111 pages
For Petitioner: NP SAHNI
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court decided not to interfere with the ITAT's order. Regarding the issue concerning the addition made by the AO under Section 14A/Rule 8D, the Tribunal had remitted the case to the AO for fresh adjudication. The High Court found no reason to interfere with this procedural direction at that stage. Concerning the depreciation on computer peripherals, the High Court noted that the total amount involved was only ₹65,338 and, for this reason, declined to entertain the issue in the present appeal. The appeals were accordingly dismissed. The issue pertaining to Section 2(22)(e) was already decided against the Revenue in a previous case, CIT vs. Ankitech Pvt. Ltd.

What were the facts?

The appeals before the Delhi High Court involved two Income Tax Appeal (ITA) numbers: 1136/201L and 1137/201L. The Revenue was the appellant, and the assessee was the respondent. The assessment years are not explicitly stated. The appeals challenged an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had remitted one issue back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication. Another issue concerned the depreciation on computer peripherals, with the AO allowing 25% depreciation against the assessee's claim of 60%. The total amount disputed for this depreciation issue was ₹65,338. The appeals were dismissed by the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in remitting the issue concerning the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 14A/Rule 8D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for fresh adjudication by the AO? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Section 14A and Rule 8D). 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in not entertaining the issue of depreciation on computer peripherals, where the assessee claimed 60% depreciation against the AO's allowance of 25%, given the low amount involved (₹65,338)? (Mixed question of law and fact). Contentions: Assessee: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue: The judgment does not explicitly state the Revenue's contentions on the issues. However, the fact that the Revenue filed the appeals suggests disagreement with the ITAT's order. The judgment notes that the first issue pertaining to Section 2(22)(e) had already been decided against the Revenue in another case (CIT vs. Ankitech Pvt. Ltd.).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(22)(e),Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

#2&3 %LO.t0.20It Present : Mr. N.P.Sahni, Advbcate for the appellant. +ITA No.1136/201L & ITA No.1137/201L Two issues raised in. these appeals. The first issue pertains to Section 2 (22) (e) of the Income Tax Act. It has already been decided against the Revenue in the case of CIT vs. Ankitech Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.462l2009. The other issue relates to the addition made by the assessing officer under Section 14AlRule BD of the Income Tax Act. we find from the impugned order passed by the Tribunal that the Tribunal has simply remitted the case to the assessing officer for adjudication of the issue afresh. Therefore, no interference is called for at this stage. Last issue pertains to the depreciation of computer peripherals like printer otc. where the depreciation is allowed @ 60% as againstrthe depreciation allowed.@ 25o/o by the assessing officer. The total amount involved is only < 65,338/- and for this reason we are not enterUaining this issue in the present appeal. These appeals are accordingly dismissed. ACTIN SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J .. i --it: 'if f-r OCTOBER mm t0,20t1, v-$ iti.. c. t- 2011:DHC:12004

More judgments on Section 2(22)(e)

All 1,757 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(22)(e) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →