CIT vs. CONTROLS & SWITCHGEAR CO LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/1137/2011HC DelhiDLHC01142595201110 October 20111 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal noted that the first issue concerning Section 2(22)(e) had already been decided against the Revenue in the case of CIT vs. Ankitech Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.462/2009. Regarding the second issue, relating to additions under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, the Tribunal observed that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal had remitted the case to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Therefore, no interference was called for at that stage. For the third issue, concerning depreciation on computer peripherals, the Tribunal found that the total amount involved was only ₹65,338/- and for this reason, it was not entertaining the issue in the present appeal. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

What were the facts?

These appeals by the Revenue challenge an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The appeals involve two primary issues. The first issue concerns the applicability of Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act. The second issue relates to an addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The ITAT had previously remitted the Section 14A/Rule 8D issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. A third issue, concerning depreciation on computer peripherals like printers, where the assessee claimed 60% depreciation against the 25% allowed by the Assessing Officer, was also part of the proceedings. The total amount in dispute for this depreciation issue was ₹65,338/-.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act are applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Revenue contended that this issue has already been decided against them in the case of CIT vs. Ankitech Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.462/2009. 2. Whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Act is sustainable. The Tribunal had remitted this issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. 3. Whether the assessee is entitled to depreciation at 60% on computer peripherals like printers, as against 25% allowed by the Assessing Officer. The Revenue stated that for this reason, they were not entertaining this issue in the present appeal due to the small amount involved (₹65,338/-).

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- Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified

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 →