CIT v. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. (358 ITR 47)

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ajay Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 1348/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: A.Y. 2008-09For Respondent: A.Y. 2008-09

…and, the ld. AR relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A). 11. Having considered the rival submissions, we find that this issue already stands settled in favour of the assessee by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. BSES Yamuna Power Limited 358 ITR 47 (Del.), wherein the Hon’ble Court categorically held that these computer accessories and peripherals are integral part of the computer system, as the same cannot be used without computer and therefore, the same are entitled to depreciation at the higher rate of 60%. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) was justified to delete the impugned additions after rel…

Ajay Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 898/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: A.Y. 2008-09For Respondent: A.Y. 2008-09

Section 41(1)

…and, the ld. AR relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A). 11. Having considered the rival submissions, we find that this issue already stands settled in favour of the assessee by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. BSES Yamuna Power Limited 358 ITR 47 (Del.), wherein the Hon’ble Court categorically held that these computer accessories and peripherals are integral part of the computer system, as the same cannot be used without computer and therefore, the same are entitled to depreciation at the higher rate of 60%. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) was justified to delete the impugned additions after rel…

Mr. Sumit Dev, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 6197/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillai[Assessment Year: 2009-10]

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Ahuja, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Bedobani Chaudhari, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 133(6)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI “G” BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2009-10] Shri Sumit Dev Vs. The I.T.O Prop M/s India Signs Corporation Ward – 22(3) B-21, Friends Colony West New Delhi New Delhi PAN : ADJPD 2589 D (Appellant) (Respondent) [Assessment Year: 2011-12] Shri Sumit Dev Vs. The I.T.O Prop M/s India Signs Corporation Ward – 22(1) B-646, New Friends Colony New Delhi New Delhi PAN : ADJPD 2589 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri R.S. Ahuja, Adv Revenue by: Smt. Bedobani Chaudhari, Sr. DR…

M/S, Jbm Auto Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stands partly allowed

ITA 3805/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. S. V. Mehrotra & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. R. Santhanam, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr. DR

Section 115Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…vs. DCIT reported in 140 TTJ 446. By order of Ld. CIT(A), revenue is in appeal before us now. 20. At the outset, it has been submitted that issue stands covered by decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd., reported in 358 ITR 47 which has been followed in CIT vs. Orient Ceramics & Industries Ltd., reported in 358 ITR 49. 21. Ld. DR is unable to place on record any contrary decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court. He places reliance upon order of Ld. AO. 22. We, therefore, respectfully following the decisions of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. BSES Yamuna Power L…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax- 4 vs. Holtech Consulting Pvt. Ltd

ITA/163/2017HC Delhi20 Feb 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 14ASection 260ASection 36(1)

…in dispute that two questions i.e. the depreciation claim to the extent of 60% on purchase of computer peripherals and the disallowance under Section 14A of the Act, are covered by the previous judgments of this Court [CIT Vs. BSES Yamuna Power Limited [2013] 358 ITR 47 and Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs.ACIT (2012) 347 ITR 272 (Delhi)]. In these circumstances, no question of law arises on that account. 3. The third question urged is with respect to the addition of Rs.98,25,697/- made out over Rs.3,00,000,00/- paid to the two Directors as commission by the assessee. Applying provisions of Section 36(1) (ii) of the Act…

Container Corporation of India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1876/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishicontainer Corporation Of India Ltd, Dcit, C-3, Mathura Road, Opp. Apollo Circle-3(1), Vs. Hospital, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaacc1205A (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Container Corporation Of India Ltd, Circle-3(1), C-3, Mathura Road, Opp. Apollo Vs. New Delhi Hospital, New Delhi Pan:Aaacc1205A (Appellant) (Respondent) Container Corporation Of India Ltd, Acit, C-3, Mathura Road, Opp. Apollo Circle-3(1), Vs. Hospital, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaacc1205A (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Container Corporation Of India Ltd, Circle-3(1), C-3, Mathura Road, Opp. Apollo Vs. New Delhi Hospital, New Delhi Pan:Aaacc1205A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. S Krishnan, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Deepika Mittal, CIT DR

Section 80Section 80I

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I. C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Container Corporation of India Ltd, DCIT, C-3, Mathura Road, Opp. Apollo Circle-3(1), Vs. Hospital, New Delhi New Delhi PAN:AAACC1205A (Appellant) (Respondent) ACIT, Container Corporation of India Ltd, Circle-3(1), C-3, Mathura Road, Opp. Apollo Vs. New Delhi Hospital, New Delhi PAN:AAACC1205A (Appellant) (Respondent) Container Corporation of India Ltd, ACIT, C-3, Mathura Road, Opp. Apollo Circle-3(1), Vs. Hospital, New Delhi New Delhi PAN:AAACC1205A (Appellant) (Respon…

ACIT 14(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Orix Auto Infrastructure Servcies Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2106/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Ashwani Taneja, Am Acit-14(2)(2), Mumbai Vs. M/S Orix Auto Infrastructure Services Ltd., Plot No. 904, Marol Co-Op Industrial Estate Andheri-Kurla Road, Andheri– East, Mumbai – 400 059 Pan/Gir No. Aaaco2563P Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…tions on data and includes all input and output devices which are connected to or related to computer is part of computer, and hence, entitled to depreciation @60% and the same view is held by the Delhi HC in the case of CIT Vs. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd., (2013) 358 ITR 47 (Del). Hence following the above decision, AO is directed to allow depreciation @60% depreciation if 7 M/s.Orix Infrastructure Services Ltd., it is used for more than 180 days and @30% if it is used for less than 180 days. Therefore, ground of appeal is allowed. 9. Since the aforesaid finding of the learned CIT(A) is based on the principle laid do…

DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S. Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal by the assessee as well as ofthe department are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 615/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 302/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Tower-B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda New Delhi District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 615/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tower- Tax, Circle-1 (Ltu), New Delhi-110017 B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaace5174C Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Adv. Sh. Abhishek Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Piyush Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Piyush Jain, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 92D

…re is termed as “computer” and is eligible for depreciation, at the rate of depreciation applicable to computer i.e. 60%. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " CIT Vs Birlasoft Ltd. in ITA No. 1284/2011 (Delhi) " CIT Vs BSES Yamuna Powers Ltd. 358 ITR 47 (Del) " CIT Vs Citicorp Maruti Financle Ltd. in ITA 1712 & 1714/2010 (Del) " CIT Vs Orient Ceramics and Inds Ltd. 200 Taxman 64 (Del) " CIT Vs BSES Rajdhani Powers Ltd. in ITA No. 1266/2010 (Del) 27. In his rival submissions the ld. CIT DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below. 28. We have considered the submissions of both the p…

Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal by the assessee as well as ofthe department are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 302/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 302/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Tower-B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda New Delhi District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 615/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tower- Tax, Circle-1 (Ltu), New Delhi-110017 B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaace5174C Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Adv. Sh. Abhishek Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Piyush Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Piyush Jain, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 92D

…re is termed as “computer” and is eligible for depreciation, at the rate of depreciation applicable to computer i.e. 60%. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " CIT Vs Birlasoft Ltd. in ITA No. 1284/2011 (Delhi) " CIT Vs BSES Yamuna Powers Ltd. 358 ITR 47 (Del) " CIT Vs Citicorp Maruti Financle Ltd. in ITA 1712 & 1714/2010 (Del) " CIT Vs Orient Ceramics and Inds Ltd. 200 Taxman 64 (Del) " CIT Vs BSES Rajdhani Powers Ltd. in ITA No. 1266/2010 (Del) 27. In his rival submissions the ld. CIT DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below. 28. We have considered the submissions of both the p…

M/S. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gurgaon vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of

ITA 6795/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. KVSR Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anupama Anand, CIT/DR

Section 14A

…ion @ 60 % and not 15%. 32. We have carefully considered the issue. LAN (local Area Network) and WAN *(wide area network) is a bunch of cables and switches which can be used with computers only. Hon Delhi High court in case of CIT V BSES Yamuna Power Limited 358 ITR 447 has held that computer accessories and peripherals such as, printers, scanners and server, etc., form an integral part of the computer system. In fact, the computer accessories and peripherals cannot be used without the computer. Consequently, as they are the part of the computer system, they are entitled to depreciation at the higher rate of 60…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Biltech Building Elements Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for the A

ITA 4686/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Suchitra Kambleay: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri K.K.Jaiswal, D.RFor Respondent: Sh. P.C.Yadav, Adv

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 32

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AY: 2007-08 ACIT, Central Circle 3(1) vs. Billtech Building Elements Ltd. New Delhi Thapar House 124, Janpath New Delhi PAN: AACCB 4080 A Cross Objection no. 422/Del/2012 (In ITA No. 4686/Del/2012) AY: 2007-08 Billtech Building Elements Ltd. vs. ACIT, C.C. 3(1) New Delhi New Delhi AY: 2008-09 ACIT, C.C. 3(1) vs. Billtech Building Elements Ltd. New Delhi New Delhi Cross Objection no. 423/Del/2012 (In ITA No. 4687/Del/2012) AY: 2008-09 Billtech Building Elem…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Timex Group India Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 259/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 2769/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs M/S Timex Watches Ltd., Circle-16(1), 117, Ground Floor, World Trade New Delhi Centre, Babar Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 323/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 M/S Timex Watches Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 117, Ground Floor, World Trade Tax, Circle-16(1), Centre, Babar Road, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact0773C

For Appellant: Sh. K.M. Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Gautam Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Hemant Gupta, Sr. DR

…rder. 48. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. It is noticed that on a similar issue the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs BSES Yamuna Powers Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 47 (supra) held as under: “Computer accessories and peripherals such as printers, scanners and server form an integral part of the computer system. In fact, the computer accessories and peripherals cannot be used without the computer. Consequently, as they are part of the computer system, they are entitled to depreciation at the higher rate of 60 per…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Timex Group India Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 258/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 2769/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs M/S Timex Watches Ltd., Circle-16(1), 117, Ground Floor, World Trade New Delhi Centre, Babar Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 323/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 M/S Timex Watches Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 117, Ground Floor, World Trade Tax, Circle-16(1), Centre, Babar Road, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact0773C

For Appellant: Sh. K.M. Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Gautam Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Hemant Gupta, Sr. DR

…rder. 48. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. It is noticed that on a similar issue the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs BSES Yamuna Powers Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 47 (supra) held as under: “Computer accessories and peripherals such as printers, scanners and server form an integral part of the computer system. In fact, the computer accessories and peripherals cannot be used without the computer. Consequently, as they are part of the computer system, they are entitled to depreciation at the higher rate of 60 per…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Timex Watches Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2769/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 2769/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs M/S Timex Watches Ltd., Circle-16(1), 117, Ground Floor, World Trade New Delhi Centre, Babar Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 323/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 M/S Timex Watches Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 117, Ground Floor, World Trade Tax, Circle-16(1), Centre, Babar Road, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact0773C

For Appellant: Sh. K.M. Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Gautam Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Hemant Gupta, Sr. DR

…rder. 48. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. It is noticed that on a similar issue the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs BSES Yamuna Powers Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 47 (supra) held as under: “Computer accessories and peripherals such as printers, scanners and server form an integral part of the computer system. In fact, the computer accessories and peripherals cannot be used without the computer. Consequently, as they are part of the computer system, they are entitled to depreciation at the higher rate of 60 per…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Convertech Equipment Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s ground on the issue in question is dismissed

ITA 4734/DEL/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Ms. Suchitra Kamble :Asstt. Yr: 2006-07 Acit, Circle 3(1), Vs. M/S Convertech Equipment Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. F-90/6, Okhla Indl. Area, Phase-I, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacc 0815 E & Asstt. Yr: 2006-07 M/S Convertech Equipment Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Circle 3(1), F-90/6, Okhla Indl. Area, Phase-I, New Delhi. New Delhi. ( Appellant ) (Respondent) Department By : Shri Neehar Ranjan Pandey Sr. Dr Assessee By : Shri V.K. Garg Date Of Hearing : 14/12/2015. Date Of Order : 08/02/2016. O R D E R Per S.V. Mehrotra, A.M:

For Appellant: Shri V.K. GargFor Respondent: Shri Neehar Ranjan Pandey Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234DSection 36Section 36(1)(ii)

…h the parties, we find that there is no dispute that the depreciation @ 60% was claimed by assessee on the computer peripherals with printers. This issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court I the case of BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. 358 ITR 47, wherein it has been held that on computer accessories and peripherals assessee is entitled to higher rate of depreciation @ 60%. Respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble High Court this ground is dismissed. 14. Charging of interest u/s 234B & 234D is consequential. 15. In the result, assessee’s appeal as well as revenue’s appeals are dism…