CIT vs. INTERTOLL ICS CECONS O & M COMPANY P. LTD

!::: t'i: $-7 * IN THE IIIGH COURT OF DELIII AT NEW DELHI -l- rrA4t4t20r2 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Puneet Gupta, Jr. Standing Counsel and Ms. Gayatri Verma, Advocatc. versus INTERTOLL ICS CECONS O & M COMPANV p. t.rn ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Prakash Kumar, Advocate. CORAM: TION'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BIIAT IION'BLI] MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR ORDER " 22.08.2012 1. 'fhree grounds have been urged by the Revenue in supporl of this appeal against thc order of the ITAT dated 30.09.2011 in ITA No.4402lDcIl20I0 for the assessment year 2005-06. Z. The first ground urged is in respect of disallowance of { 1,30,25,9321-. On this, the ltibunal observed that the CIT (A) who had allowcd the appcal took into colsideration the amended provisions of Section a0 (a) (ia) and held thc disallowance to be unwauanted. Accordingly, that amount was deleted. The Coufl is of thc opinion that there is no infirmity with the irnpugned findings of the Tribunal since the amendment carne into force w.c.f. I.4.2005,i.e., during the relevant assessment year. 3. I'he second ground of appeal urged is in rcspcct of disallowance of certain amount on account of depreciation towalds printers, scanners and UPS. Thc assessee lrad clairncd 60% deprecialion. Thc AO allor.ved only 25Yo. This Cout notices that the items i.c. printers, scanners and UPS are separatcly covered by two decisions of this Court. i.e.. CIT v. Orient Ceramics and Industries Ltd, (2011) 56 DTR 397 (Del) (in CIT t B Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signature Not Verified

Lj *t respect of UPS), CIT v. B,S/S Yamuna Powers Ltd., and CIT v. BSE^S Rajdhani Pou'ers Ltd.,lTANo.l267l20l0 and 126612010 in respect of printers and scanners (both decided on 31.08.2010). No substantial question of law arises on this aspect; findings of the 'fribunal are accordingly upheld. 4. 'fhe third ground urged is in respect of the claim made by the assessee to the tune of lts.2,70,82,8591- being penalty on contract. The 'Iribunal held as follows: - "We have heard the rival contentions in tight of the material prodttced and precedent relied upon. We find that Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has given (t correct finding that the amount oJ Rs.2,i0,-ti2B,5g/- was not actually penalty, but it lt,cts ct recovery nmde on account of deficiencies detected in the quantity and quality of services rendered by it in tcrnts of O&M Ag"eements. Thus, these amount recovered are not for any infraction of law, rather as per the terms of tle conh'ctct. Hence,- in our considered opinion, there is no infirmity in the l "rif,fJ,i{r,!:rf;,go*r'issioner of rnconte T'ax (Appeats), rherefore' we 5. This Cout is of the opinion that the findings are not only concuncnt but based on the facts of the case and no interference is called for. The appeal is dismisscd. S. RAVINDRA BIIAT, J N*,. R.V.EASWAR, J AUGUST 22,20L2 /vks/ u,