Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES “E”: DELHI
Before: SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI & SHRI O.P. KANT
For Revenue : Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT-D.R. For Assessee : Shri Neeraj Mangal, C.A. Date of Hearing : 22.01.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 28.01.2020 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M.
Both the appeals by the Revenue are directed against the different Orders of the Ld. CIT(A)-15, New Delhi,
2 ITA.No.3778/Del./2017 & ITA.No.3777/Del./2017 M/s. MPS Infotecnics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. Dated 27.02.2017, for the A.Y. 2012-2013 and Dated 28.02.2017 for the A.Y. 2005-2006.
We have heard the Learned Representatives of both the parties and perused the Orders of the authorities below. The appeals are decided as under.
A.Y. 2012-2013 :
On Ground Nos.1 to 4, the Revenue challenged the Order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the excess claim of depreciation of Rs.2,46,81,028/- under section 32(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on the asset classified by the assessee as ‘Software and Intellectual Property Right’ by ignoring the rate of depreciation of 25% instead of allowing depreciation @ 60%. The Ld. CIT(A) following his Order for the A.Y. 2010- 2011 Dated 26.03.2014 has allowed 60% depreciation on the above item.
Learned Counsel for the Assessee, at the outset submitted that in A.Ys. 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 similar issue came-up for consideration before the ITAT, Delhi Bench, in which Departmental Appeal have been dismissed
3 ITA.No.3778/Del./2017 & ITA.No.3777/Del./2017 M/s. MPS Infotecnics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. vide Order Dated 11.04.2017. He has further submitted that in A.Y. 2010-2011, the Departmental Appeal have also been dismissed by the Tribunal on the same issue vide Order Dated 08.11.2018. Copy of the order is placed on record.
The Ld. D.R. did not dispute the above fact.
Considering the facts of the case in the light of Orders of the Tribunal above, we are of the view that this issue has already been decided by the Tribunal in A.Ys. 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 in favour of the assessee whereby the Order of the Ld. CIT(A) have been confirmed in allowing the depreciation @ 60% instead of 25% allowed by the A.O. We are of the view that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the above decisions of the Tribunal. No infirmity have been pointed-out in the Order of the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, Ground Nos.1 to 4 of the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed.
On Ground Nos.5 and 6, the Revenue challenged the disallowance of Rs.6 lakhs under section 37(1) of the I.T. Act on account of legal and professional charges.
4 ITA.No.3778/Del./2017 & ITA.No.3777/Del./2017 M/s. MPS Infotecnics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.
The assessee submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) that reply were filed on Dated 29.01.2015 and 27.03.2015 whereby complete details of legal and professional expenses, disallowance of TDS deducted thereon and details of the parties concerned along with relevant portion of the bank statements were filed before A.O. It was submitted that the said amount was paid to Shri Sachin Chopra, Advocate towards his services to assist and looking after the interests of the assessee-company in Portugal and London for recovery of the amount wrongly debited, out of the balance lying in the assessee’s account with the Bank of Portugal. The amount thus was paid wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the assessee-company. It was further submitted that the said payments are duly reflected in the bank statements, on which, TDS has been deducted. The Ld. CIT(A), accordingly, deleted the addition.
The Ld. D.R. contended that assessee did not produce the detailed evidences before the A.O. Therefore, additional evidences should not be admitted by the Ld. CIT(A).
5 ITA.No.3778/Del./2017 & ITA.No.3777/Del./2017 M/s. MPS Infotecnics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 10. Learned Counsel for the Assessee, however, reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and filed copies of the replies Dated 29.01.2015 and 27.03.2015 filed before A.O. at assessment stage along with detailed documentary evidences which have been filed before the A.O. He has, therefore, submitted that claim of Ld. D.R. is incorrect. Copies of the replies are placed on record.
After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that no interference is called for in the matter. The A.O. made disallowance out of these expenses because no details have been furnished, but, replies of the assessee- company are filed before A.O. which clearly shows that assessee-company filed complete details before A.O. on this issue. In this view of the matter, we do not find any merit in these grounds of appeal of the Revenue and Ground Nos.5 and 6 of the Revenue are accordingly dismissed.
In the result, Appeal of the Revenue for the A.Y. 2012-2013 is dismissed.
6 ITA.No.3778/Del./2017 & ITA.No.3777/Del./2017 M/s. MPS Infotecnics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. A.Y. 2005-2006 :
In this Departmental Appeal, the Revenue challenged the Order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance of excess claim of depreciation of Rs.2,23,32,863/- under section 32(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961.
This issue is the same as have been considered in A.Y. 2012-2013 (supra). Following the reasons for the decision for the same, we dismiss the Departmental Appeal for the A.Y. 2005-2006.
In the result, appeal of the Revenue for the A.Y. 2005-2006 is dismissed.
To sum-up, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court.