ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(2), CHENNAI vs. SUNDARAM AUTO COMPONENTS PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

I.T.A.No.2093/Chny/2018 is an appeal filed by the Revenue, against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-15, Chennai in dated 28.03.2018 for the assessment year 2013-14, & correspondingly, the assessee filed Cross & 2094/Chny/2018 :- 2 -: C.O Nos.130 & 129/Chny/2018 Objections No.130/Chny/2018 and I.T.A.No.2094/Chny/2018 is an appeal filed by the Revenue, against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-15, Chennai in dated 26.03.2018 for the assessment year 2014-15, & correspondingly, the assessee filed Cross Objections No.129/Chny/2018. Since the issues in both the appeals are identical, these appeals are disposed off through a common order.

It was submitted by ld.D.R that Ground Nos.2 to 2.8 in both the appeals of the Revenue was against the action of Ld.CIT(A) in restricting the disallowance u/s.14A to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee. The ld.D.R vehemently opposed the order of Ld.CIT(A).

In reply, it was submitted by ld.A.R that the issue was now squarely covered by the decision of Special Bench of Delhi Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Vireet Investments Private Ltd., in ITA No.502/Del./2012 wherein the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs.CIT reported in (2015) 372 ITR 0694(Delhi) has been followed. & 2094/Chny/2018 :- 3 -: C.O Nos.130 & 129/Chny/2018

We have considered the rival submissions. As it is noticed that the ld.CIT(A) has followed the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs.CIT referred to supra and as Revenue has not been able to place any other decision on the issue in favour of Revenue, respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs.CIT referred to supra, the finding of the Ld.CIT(A) on this issue stands confirmed.

In regard to Ground Nos.3 to 3.2, it was submitted by ld.D.R that the issue was against the action of Ld.CIT(A) in allowing the assessee’s claim of additional depreciation. Ld.D.R vehemently supported the orders of the ld. Assessing Officer and the Ld.CIT(A).

In reply, it was submitted by ld.A.R that the issue was now squarely covered by the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of DCIT Vs. Sundaram Auto components Private Ltd., in wherein for assessment year 2011-12 wherein following the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Rittal India Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2016) 380 ITR 424, the issue has been held in favour of the assessee.

We have considered the rival submissions. As it is noticed that the issue is now squarely covered by the decision of Co-ordinate & 2094/Chny/2018 :- 4 -: C.O Nos.130 & 129/Chny/2018 Bench of this Tribunal in the case of DCIT Vs. Sundaram Auto components Private Ltd., vide order dated 25.11.2016 referred to supra, the finding of the Ld.CIT(A) on this issue stands confirmed.

At the time of hearing, the ld.A.R did not wish to press both the Cross Objections filed by the assessee and consequently, the two Cross Objections filed by the assessee stand dismissed as not pressed.

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and both the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed as not pressed.